Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against National Review and Mark Steyn continues. National Review, while having walked back some of the early claims to square one, failed to get the suit dismissed. But Steyn is going on his own path and says he will fight in court for a verdict.
Anyone so inclined can help at: http://steynonline.com
[Note: I’ve removed the direct email address and most of the original comment, as it is creating an overwhelming response.
It seems that that best way to support Steyn’s effort is with a donation, see this:
Some readers have asked about that, Steyn says
As I’ve said, in previous battles I’ve never asked for money, and always responded simply by asking supporters to buy a book or a subscription to Maclean’s or whatever. But the scale of things is different down here: Michael Mann has Big Tobacco lawyer John Williams (before the hockey stick, his previous fictional client was Joe Camel) and at least three other named attorneys working on his case. So, for the moment, we’re asking those who “don’t need a coffee mug” to consider buying one of our new SteynOnline gift certificates either for a friend or for yourself, to be redeemed down the line in the event that we improve our mug designs. I’ve been heartened to see they’re being bought in places where I was barely aware I had readers, including the remoter Indonesian provinces, a couple of Central Asian stans, and dear old Vanuatu (for fellow old-school imperialists, that was pre-1980 the Anglo-French condominium of the New Hebrides). They never expire, so you can put it to one side and redeem it when my new book comes out later this year.
===========================================================
I’d suggest NOT leaving your questions in comments, since that may provide an unfair preparation advantage to the plaintiff. – Anthony
They are fighting over a pack of lies called global warming. How sickening. So much need in this world – those funds could be better used for helping people in need. These GW apostles of Al Gore are their own worst enemies.
which will support certain statements he made about Dr. Man for which the suit was brought
For clarity and organization, Mr. Steyn should list and itemize the “certain statements” in question.
These should come from NR article and from plaintiffs court documents.
Then the readers can suggest references cross referenced to the statements.
Any legal expert wants to describe what exactly the discovery phase of such a trial will entail?
Anthony, your suggestion that the questions not be detailed here makes sense.
However, that train may have left the station – the extensive discussion currently going on at Lucia’s blog will be pored over by lawyers for both sides.
Steyn should retain McIntyre as an expert – or at least as an advisor. That would be well worth the investment.
Contact McIntyre – 2003, 2005 the Hockey Stick Fraud was destroyed.
Also ask for the entire set of algorithms, data base, models, documentation and assumptions from Piltdown Mann and have IT people go through all of it.
I am not a scientist. (Readers of my comments are probably painfully aware of that.) So, I cannot assist Mark Steyn in the discovery process of this trial. I can, however, assist financially. I just might wear a T-shirt with his smiling face and name on it. I understand they are for sale. Perhaps I’ll have my morning cup of coffee whilst looking at his smiling face on the cup. I’m pretty certain anybody can Google to find a website where such fine items may be acquired.
I am sure Steyn has already done this, but it would be helpful to catalog all of Mann’s mis-statements, lies, and political rants. This would show a pattern of Mann’s penchant to mislead people about his personal status and science. His science is nothing more than political speak.
So Steyn is admitting that he accused Mann of fraud although he did not have evidence to backup his claim.
Yes, I’m echoing the call for McIntyre. Meanwhile, this is an opportunity for us mostly anonymous climate blog skeptics, a kind of Greek Chorus with a lot to say but not much to do, to help Steyn with a lawsuit which could have major public relations repercussions for both sides.
Let’s give til it hurts!
The best way to help Steyn is to convince him to join the appeal that the other defendants have filed, on free speech grounds. That’s where his case is strongest. An appellate court can issue a binding precedent that deters future cases of this kind.
Felix – No, neither Mann nor Steyn has admitted any such thing. But both will be asking discovery from each other.
I’m all for supporting Mark Steyn in the lawsuit that Michael Mann saw fit to embroil him in. National Republic, sorry to say, has grown cold feet and sort of deserted Steyn, probably fearing the overhead of protracted legal proceedings and Mann’s hush-hush funded ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Everything that @Stephen Rasey wants to know can be found, in detail, on
http://www.steynonline.com/
This courageously unfaltering guy, by the way, does not fancy or encourage cash donations. He wants folks to get a run for their money by buying one of his books or music compilations, which naturally adds a few bucks to his war chest. But they’re worth having and reading, and this British Canadian American certainly knows lots more about music than Lady Gaga, Al Gore and Justin Bieber combined.
Mark Steyn, embroiled in a lawsuit brought by Dr. Mike Mann, is asking for suggestions as to how he can substantiate his case during the discovery phase of the trial. Plainly, Steyn….
…is toast.
I’m a long time commenter here, and friend to the cause of better science. (goback to the days of SurfaceStations.org and helped get pics of a local station) I’m sorry, but this isn’t science… It’s law. Science typically does not translate well in a legal setting, and there is nothing out there that would be compelling enough to support Steyn’s assertion of fraud, especially since most of the climate science community will back Mann. Remember, the scientific evidence against OJ was pretty damning, but we see what happened in that case. And try taking a “psychic” to court. Armed with even the best science that CLEARLY show psychics are frauds, it’s rare to get a conviction.
This case is, what, a year old now or more…. If Steyn doesn’t have material to build a good case by now, he’s done.
PS. Is he defending himself???? If so, that’s another fork in this sad turkey of a case.
Lots of good discussion on this very topic here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-meaning-of-r2-in-pictures-mann-v-steynsimbergceinro/
Mike, “there is nothing out there that would be compelling enough to support Steyn’s assertion of fraud”
Yes, there is.
Mike — It’s Mann who brought the case. Steyn doesn’t have to prove Mann is a fraud; Mann has to prove Steyn didn’t believe he is. The evidence hasn’t even come in yet; the fights so far have been over motions to dismiss. There has been no discovery so far, so neither side has yet had the chance to get evidence from the other side (which is what discovery is – I’m sure both sides have been diligently gathering publicly available evidence, which is a different story).
Mike Alexander
February 4, 2014 at 8:49 am
says:
‘…I’m sorry, but this isn’t science… It’s law.’
You’re quite right. But, then again, climate science was never science either. Do I remember another Canadian saying, “Never mind if the science is all phony…”? Climate science has always been all about a return to that wonderful, glorious time between the fall of the Roman Republic and the ‘Shot heard ’round the world.’ A time when the peasants, the serfs, knew their proper place in the scheme of things. A time when they unquestioningly bowed to authority. You’re right, let’s let Steyn rot.
@Mike Alexander:
You might be right by a frog’s hair. Agreed. But please consider the obvious fraud of Mann’s hockey stick, the “Hide the decline” exchange of emails, his usurpation of the Nobel Prize given to the IPCC (a scam in its own right), the vested interests Mann is fighting for in spite of science having produced quite different results, his pathetic claim of being a private person, not a public talking face, thus immune from reproof, even if it’s substantiated …
Once Dr. Mann appears in court, which he has been shirking all the way, matters might very well take a different turn, don’cha think? Depends on the guys behind the bench, of course.
Police will tell you that anything you say can and will be used against you. I suggest capturing and recording every blog post, every twitter post, every facebook post, everything where Michael Mann goes on a rant and use it against him in trial. Ask “why is okay for Dr. Mann to call Judith Curry ‘anti-scientific’ without proof or to call Anthony Watts a ‘denier’ which is an attempt to connect a person with a holocaust denier but it is not okay for someone to call Dr. Mann a fraud? Why is free speech selective?”
The discovery phase is the most lengthy part of a lawsuit. The parties send each other written lists of questions, called interrogatories, and demands for the production of documents in each others’ possession that may be relevant to the facts of the case. The parties also examine witnesses, or potential witnesses, under oath. These examinations are called depositions. The discovery phase may take many months. Once discovery closes, one or both parties will again attempt to finish the case without trial by filing a motion for summary judgment. The judge may grant summary judgment, or grant partial summary judgment on some points, in which case the remaining issues are tried, or deny summary judgment and proceed to trial. That’s a year or two away at this point.
If possible, Mark should request all Mann’s emails related to the Climategate releases, along with all his emails from his UVa and Penn State days. After all, Mann is objecting to the UVa emails release, and has repeatedly maintained the Climategate emails were taken out of context.
Mike — It’s Mann who brought the case. Steyn doesn’t have to prove Mann is a fraud; Mann has to prove Steyn didn’t believe he is.
If that were the case, then Steyn wouldn’t need to troll the blogosphere for suggestions as to how he can substantiate his case. I’m no fan of Mann, but the case rests on Steyn being able to show that (A) he was giving an opinion and no more than an opinion, or (B) that he has plenty of substantiated evidence to show that Mann is a fraud. Steyn has already whiffed at option (A) and now (B) is in play. Steyn now has to show that he has valid reasons for calling Mann a fraud. And I’m sorry, but a few blog-post from Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts or anyone else is not going to be able to convince anyone that Mann committed fraud,especially since the scientific community says he didn’t.
And remember, if Mann was accused by Steyn of simply being wrong, there would be no case here. Steyn is in hot water because he used the term “fraud” on multiple occasions. Because he used that specific term, which implies that Mann ‘knew” he was being deceptive, Steyn has to show that he has ample proof that backs the claim.
Note…. I’m no fan of this entire episode. I think this lawsuit is dumb, and wished the court had thrown it out… Thought they should have. But they didn’t.
I agree, Mann can be hung by his own words.
grs says:
February 4, 2014 at 9:22 am
” … That’s a year or two away at this point.”
—-l
I wonder how the CAGW hypothesis will be doing in two years time?
A link to the formal court documents would be helpful. The details in the formal complaint will provide clearer guidance to the appopriate line of questioning and any opportunity to dissect and dispute the data that is ultimately at the core of the entire litigation. Connecting the claimed liable to the flawed science is critical to success for the defendant.
Documentation links anyone?
Mann needs to provide a list of his actions that were in violation of the terms of his employment.
Now Mann will certainly deny any such acts. It should be an easy step to perjury from there.
I would donate to a Styne defense fund but his site is so darned confusing I can’t find a link to a DONATE FUNDS…can anyone help me?
Anthony?
REPLY: Steyn writes…
– Anthony
Dr. Ball, a guest contributor here, has fought Mann to a standstill in Canada. (As I understand it Mann has not complied with Dr. Ball’s document demands.) Perhaps Dr. Ball, if he reads this, could get in touch with Mr. Steyn directly and share the benefit of his, no doubt unpleasant, experience.
But please consider the obvious fraud of Mann’s hockey stick, the “Hide the decline” exchange of emails,
That doesn’t matter. The scientific community where Mann’s work exists, has accepted that the “hide the decline” bit is sound and scientific. What is Steyn going to do when Mann presents statements from all his colleagues, three dozen or so who are fellow climatologists working iin the same field, plus the IPCC reports, all saying the technique is sound, and all Steyn has are a handful of scientists and bloggers who say it’s not. Which side is the average jury going to be more receptive to?
his usurpation of the Nobel Prize given to the IPCC (a scam in its own right),
Irrelevant, because that only happened after the case was filed. And it doesn’t show Mann and the hickeystick is / are frauds.
the vested interests Mann is fighting for in spite of science having produced quite different results, his pathetic claim of being a private person, not a public talking face, thus immune from reproof, even if it’s substantiated …
All irrelevant. To borrow a metaphor from Steve M… That is the thimble, not the pea. The pea is showing fraud, or convincing the jury that the fraud is there, and that Mann KNEW he was being deceptive. “Hide The Decline” certainly SOUNDS deceptive…. But when all of Manns colleagues says it’s not, and it’s just a turn of phrase…. Steyn is doomed.
Once Dr. Mann appears in court, which he has been shirking all the way, matters might very well take a different turn, don’cha think?
He hasn’t been “shirking away from it… He brought the lawsuit.
Depends on the guys behind the bench, of course.
Depends more on if Steyn can present a good enough case to support his assertion that Michael Mann is a fraud. So far, Steyn is very much on the losing end of this fight. Having and using questionable techniques is not the same as being fraudulent. One is pushing the envelope, something done in science all the time, sometimes to good effect, sometime not. Fraud is knowing damned well that what you’re doing is BS. When the rest of the climate science community, who know far more about this subject than Steyn does, backs Mann and says he’s not committing fraud…. Unless Steyn finds that elusive smoking gun, it’s not hard to see how this is going to turn out.
My prediction. Steyn loses. He also finds nothing that shows Mann committed fraud. But this goes to the upper courts and gets tossed for free speech issues.
Suggestion to Steyn – shut-up about Mann while you have a pending law suit with him.
If that were the case, then Steyn wouldn’t need to troll the blogosphere for suggestions as to how he can substantiate his case. I’m no fan of Mann, but the case rests on Steyn being able to show that (A) he was giving an opinion and no more than an opinion, or (B) that he has plenty of substantiated evidence to show that Mann is a fraud.
Incorrect; “plenty of substantiated evidence” is not the standard at all. Read the correct standards here. You don’t know, no more than I do, what kind of evidence Steyn has collected already. This post is about “what Steyn should try to get from Mann now that, for the first time, he has that opportunity.” Even a litigant with a rock solid case is not going to miss the opportunity to get more evidence from the other side once discovery begins. Mann will certainly do that. Just as Steyn will.
Steyn, having fired his lawyers, is trying to crowdsource the issue of “what to ask Mann for.” I think that’s a foolish move; I think he should get a new lawyer for that. But it says nothing about what other evidence he already has, and it certainly does not imply that Steyn has to show “plenty of substantiated evidence” or prove anything in order to prevail.
Mark may be asking for help but I don’t see what issues he wants help with. Court documents? I don’t see any of that at his web-site.
Crowd sourcing is probably a good idea but there is no place on Mark’s web-sit to accumulate or collate crowd-sourced information.
Lucia seems to be doing some of this on her own. Explaining R2 even to an innumerate clod like me.
Mark simply needs to find out if Mann knowingly suppressed or selectively omitted data in coming up with the “Hockey Stick” or anything else he’s submitted. Collusion with others via the “Climategate” emails would support this so he has to get his hands on any other incriminating emails that may still be “sequestered.” Just pointing out his slip-shod statistical approach is not enough, unless it can be shown he selected his method intentionally and presented the spliced “data” together in a deceptive manner. Good Luck!
The first point that should be discovered is who is funding Dr. Mann’s legal team.
Felix says:
February 4, 2014 at 8:28 am
“So Steyn is admitting that he accused Mann of fraud although he did not have evidence to backup his claim.”
That is a completely skewed way to look at it. Detailing a list for a lawsuit is likely to be done more thoroughly than for an article. He doesn’t want to leave anything out so that he makes the strongest possible case. Possibly another skewed way of looking at it; perhaps we’re both skewed? My guess is he already had what he thought was enough ammo for an article and wants all he can get as the defendant for a lawsuit non knowing himself how someone else will judge; seems fair enough to me.
Mann’s repeated claim to Nobel recognition even after the Committee clarified the issue is fraud. The case is a slam dunk. Go Steyn!
Cmon! Steyn’s a satirist. Take it to a jury and let him do 5 minutes on the court-room decor, on his own lawyer’s clothing, on the weather at Ice Station EIB! No remotely sane jury could convict.
I think there’s a difference between calling someone a fraud(opinion, commentary)and saying someone committed a fraud, the allegation of a crime or Tort. Calling someone a fraud is like saying one is an ’empty suit’. Pure opinion, I would say. But saying Mann defrauded someone(the public, the government, a specific person)is more than opinion. It’s an allegation of the commission of a wrong, civil or criminal. But what was the ‘wrong’? The Hockey Stick Graph? We know that was totally unfounded and it deliberately left out proven historical warming and cooling periods in the past. Policy and Polemics have been driven by Mann’s pronouncements which have encouraged and resulted in the expenditure of public and private funds. And for what? If Steyn can show that Mann deliberately omitted historical and scientific evidence in developing his ‘Hockey Stick”, I would call that fraud. And Mann’s working for NASA and the Federal Government would seem to lend a kind of public fiduciary responsibility to Mann’s work and official comments. That is my non-scientist’s, layperson’s two cents.
To quote directly, Mann — in his person or in his profession, has not been labeled a fraud. Mann is, according to Steyn, ‘the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.’
The opinion regarding the WORK has to be distinct from the opinion of the WORKER.
The phrase “ring master of the tree-ring circus” is cute but not defamatory.
I think it is relatively easy to prove that Mann committed a fraud: just invoke the CENSORED directory from his university website which proves they ran the sensitivity test without the bristlecones in the data set, sand discovered that the hockey stick disappears in that case.
….and decided not to report this result in the paper !!!
There are several ways to pin Mann down into something close to an admission of fraud. An obvious one, with respect to the “hockey stick”, is to find out how he validated his statistical methods. If he tested them in any manner similar to what Steve McIntyre did, then he would have known they did not work (=fraud). If he did not test them, but represented them as valid, that also seems like fraud (scientifically, at least). I suppose the third option is that he tested them lightly or incorrectly, and thought they worked, which would merely be incompetence. Giving Mann the benefit of the doubt, that he is not incompetent, leaves the *appearance* of fraud.
It is clear the Climategate emails will be central to this and that Mann will try to have them refused as evidence. Without knowing ‘officially’ which parts of tree ring data that were selectively removed, it is hard to prove the hockey stick was not simply the result of incompetence. Do not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
However, others having demonstrated in journals that the hockey stick was incompetent, and understanding as climate scientists do, that the incompetence means something important, to perpetuate the meme that it was correct, and to produce further defective (or incompetent) works purporting to support the hockey stick could amount of fraudulent behavior. One could show for example that there is a lot of fraud in academic works on climate as supporting evidence. By that I mean knowingly defending incompetent work with other works crafted to support an earlier incompetent work and doing it knowingly in concert with others is still fraudulent behavior, especially if one gained monetarily from doing so.
If Mann is willing to be judged to be incompetent in order to avoid being found fraudulent, he might win the case. The compensation payable might not be much.
Joseph W.,
“Steyn doesn’t have to prove Mann is a fraud; Mann has to prove Steyn didn’t believe he is.”
Hmm. In your second comment, you direct us to some helpful legal definitions. As I read them, I wonder: Is it enough for Steyn if Mann fails to prove Steyn didn’t believe he’s a fraud, but (repeatedly) called him one anyway?
It seems to me that if Mann can convince the jury that he is not a fraud (that maybe he was wrong, not that he’d ever admit it, but not willfully so), then there’s a case to be made that Steyn made the statement with Reckless Disregard for its truth or falsity.
My sympathies are all with Steyn, but I’m worried for him. Legally, I think Mann may have a point – even if I happen to think his findings were marshaled to support a conclusion he’d already reached, that he pushed the Hockey Stick with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity, and that he is a thin-skinned jackass and a nasty piece of work. (Can I be sued for that?)
Make the publicity of the process so odious that Penn State cries for mercy. Mann et al’s hide the decline acts are so contrary to integrity in science practices that the supposed “scientific community” is simply going to be discredited in the eyes of the numerate and technically literate population. Probably the ordinary people too.
I wouldn’t send a kid to Penn State for a free education in any science or profession – future bad reputation risk a la Mann or Sandusky, a 3rd time, three strikes. What happens to Penn State when a large percentage of the population thinks that too, even if the lawyers slice, bake and martyr Steyn in a resource war. Especially ca 2020, if it’s extra cold, and the Mannian circus is still not producing publicly demanded or court ordered information…
Joseph W… thanks for that link.
It says this of the burden of proof of malice:
“””the plaintiff must produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendant actually knew the information was false or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. In making this determination, a court will look for evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication and will likely examine the steps he took in researching, editing, and fact checking his work. It is generally not sufficient, however, for a plaintiff to merely show that the defendant didn’t like her, failed to contact her for comment, knew she had denied the information, relied on a single biased source, or failed to correct the statement after publication.
Not surprisingly, this is a very difficult standard for a plaintiff to establish. Indeed, in only a handful of cases over the last decades have plaintiffs been successful in establishing the requisite actual malice to prove defamation.
The actual malice standard applies when a defamatory statement concerns three general categories of individuals: public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures. Private figures, which are discussed later in this section, do not need to prove actual malice.”””
Malice is indeed a very difficult charge to get a conviction with. I really do hope Mann loses. But this move by Steyn doesn’t give me any confidence he has any idea how to defend himself. Remember, there are both sides in this case that need to present their cases in the strongest and most sound legal way possible. How many cases have we seen where one side lost, not because they should have lost, but because the case they presented to either prosecute or defend, was crap! I totally see that happening here.
In my opinion, Steyn, on principle, SHOULD prevail. But this is a court of law. He’d damned well better have his ducks in a row.
edit: so contrary to integrity in science principles…
We can hope that one of the individuals who possess the password to the ClimateGate Emails make a private suggestion to Mr. Steyn. Somewhere in the archive is a concealed fact that reveals Dr. Mann’s public position is in contrast to what he knows to be true. Demonstrating a pattern of ‘Nobel Cause’ slanting of the facts by Dr. Mann would be one of the quickest ways to undermine his standing with the court.
Add a paypal account, so if someone wants to just make a donation they can do so.
Problem is that most people have forgotten the details of what McIntyre discovered over 5 years ago. McIntyre has already discovered and published something that is critical to Mr Steyn’s defense. I won’t mention what because you said not to do so here.
Anthony, you can send Mark Steyn my email address. I have an M.S. in Earth Science and have been following the debate about the hockey stick since M&M first began to critique the statistical methods. I also have several years of experience in legal research, including the law of libel.
Steyn needs an American lawyer because the law of libel in the US is different from the law of libel in Canada, the UK and most Commonwealth countries. I can advise him about the aspects of the law that are common to these systems. He would be foolish to proceed without a US lawyer.
Readers may know of a free speech group / association in the US who would provide advice and support, perhaps as amicus curiae.
I wonder what Naomi Oreskes thinks about Mann using Joe Camel’s lawyer?
All Steyn has to do is issue statement along the lines of, his gut feeling is that Mann is a fraud but that he did not have objective/legally admissible evidence of this, and he should have made that clear to his readers. NR could publish it. Since Mann has a tenured position and his peers and Penn St’s administrators are unlikely to take anything in NR seriously, I doubt Mann will be able to show financial losses or even potential losses in the future. So, Mann is not likely to get much money out of this. A simple retraction/clarification from Steyn and NR would likely settle this.
Here are two links to paintings by Hendrik Avercamp in the early 16 hundreds at the hight of the Little Ice age. Personally, I read about Mann’s hockey stick, I looked in a book with these pics, and I knew that what I had read was a fraud.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hendrik_Avercamp_002.jpg (1608)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Hendrick_Avercamp_-_A_Scene_on_the_Ice_-_WGA01076.jpg/500px-Hendrick_Avercamp_-_A_Scene_on_the_Ice_-_WGA01076.jpg
Here it is. Ross McKitrick:
“The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century.
Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts.”
Bingo.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
It’s very simple. What climate or weather events are happening which are beyond normal variation? What empirical evidence, not climate models, does Mann have that CO2 is influencing anything in the climate? The answer to both is no.
Simburg & Steyn accused A) Penn State of conducting a very superficial inquiry into Mann’s research after climategate and B) accused Mann of torturing and molesting the data.
Neither party accused Mann of committing fraud as would be defined by the scientific community.
What Mann has been accused of (and most likely rightly accused of) is selectively choosing the data sets to include and to omit, the weighting of the data sets and the statistical methods used to achieve the results.
This is consistent with the NSF report – which stated that the statistical methods used were subject to scientific debate.
Why this case wasnt dismissed on summary judgment
Mike A (February 4, 2014 at 10:39 am) raises an interesting point about malice. But could not Steyn’s crude Sandusky comparison, while not libelous in itself, be used as evidence of malice intent? I could see jurors taking it as such, but I know little about the legal definition of malice that the judge would give to the jury.
[snip – comment no longer relevant as body of story has been changed -mod]
This is a little off topic, but I read an interesting book some years ago entitled “Judging Science” about the intersection of science and the courts. It was published in 1997, so someone might know of a more recent book on this topic. Here is an Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Judging-Science-Scientific-Knowledge-Federal/dp/0262561204
Anybody who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. Steyn will lose this case, not because he’s wrong, but because he’s stupid.
I have no clue what law you think you’re deciding. I do recommend you brush up on libel law; especially the parts of who claims to be libeled (Manniacal) by the alleged libeler (Mark Steyn).
Mann must prove that Steyn knowingly and maliciously defamed Manniacal causing damage and distress against Manniacal’s career, earnings or perhaps body.
Steyn’s role is as a defendant. All he has to show is a lack of libel or libelous damage to Manniacal. Perhaps the easiest way out is that Steyn shows that Manniacal is a ‘public’ figure and therefore must prove a far higher standard of malicious libel.
All of Manniacal’s frantic posturing the last few years about how reluctant petty Manniacal is to be in the public eye has only increased his public exposure and lowered his ability to cry libel. Years of comics depicting Piltdown Manniacal’s person and hockety stick have already made his cry of libel difficult to prove.
Mark Steyn, just ask yourself what Mann has gone to great lengths to keep out of public view.
steyn needs to bite the bullet and hire legal counsel. he cannot win this case without it. since four entities are being sued by mann for the same thing, steyn’s counsel can simply parrot whatever their attorneys are saying. it sounds like right now we have four different legal teams doing exactly the same work. not very cost productive.
Book duly purchased, best of luck with the case Mark
This is nothing more than slip and fall type libel case. Mann has to prove to the court that he’s been injured in some fashion in some way specifically by Steyns comments. ie…..did he lose his job? did he lose a grant ? has he lost stature within his academic/personal sphere? (he claimed to have won nobel prize) These seem to be almost insurmountable obstacles to overcome for Mann.
To all the commenters here. You are forgetting that Michael Mann has to convince a judge or jury that Mark Steyn knew that what he wrote in the article was false and that he and National Review published it anyway. Steyn does not have to prove that M. Mann is a fraud. Mann has to prove malice.
Bob says:
February 4, 2014 at 8:28 am
I am sure Steyn has already done this, but it would be helpful to catalog all of Mann’s mis-statements, lies, and political rants. This would show a pattern of Mann’s penchant to mislead people about his personal status and science. His science is nothing more than political speak.
Haven’t read through all the posts yet so this may have been addressed, but I was wondering if Mann’s original complaint in which, among other things, he claimed to be a Nobel prize recipient is admissable or not, since he apparently ammended it, which sent them back to square one.
Note well there’s insurance involved. Insurance’s only consideration is to minimize its payoff. Period. They don’t care about who’s right, protected speech, whatever.
Steyn wants to win. That requires an actual defense and real money beyond insurance. He seems to be at odds with insurance provided defenses and NRO. But surely he’s still covered….it’s just humiliating to not defend for real with the aim of winning.
I believe Bill Buckley (RIP) would fight whatever the cost. I’m not sure about the new guys at National Review. They certainly talked a good game early on….
Richard Wakefield says: “It’s very simple.”
Not for the reasons you gave, the HS is not about extreme events or attribution of the temperature change to CO2. Dr Mann may believe both those are true, but the allegation is about the HS graph being fraudulent.
I think it’s important to keep focused and not assume this is a case about all of AGW.
Dan King says:
February 4, 2014 at 11:32 am
Anybody who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer. Steyn will lose this case, not because he’s wrong, but because he’s stupid.
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
That’s what lawyers say, never providing statistics to support their greedy assertion.
Actually, having a lawyer re_present you while you are already present is an admission of incompetence.
I think the problem for Mann is he acknowledged he used the term “hide the decline”, though he claimed it referred to tree ring widths not temperatures.
What he was referring to, I think, is irrelevant. The word hide is problem. Why would an ethical scientist want to hide something? The word hide has very different meaning than the words: remove, omit or exclude.
A reasonable person like Steyn, could conclude that scientists that intentional hide things are committing fraud, and thus form the opinion he expressed in the article. This opinion could be bolstered by the fact that Mann, a public employee, has repeatedly fought FOIA requests.
To all the commenters here. You are forgetting that Michael Mann has to convince a judge or jury that Mark Steyn knew that what he wrote in the article was false and that he and National Review published it anyway. Steyn does not have to prove that M. Mann is a fraud. Mann has to prove malice.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Defense and trial are a sweet dream hopefully fulfilled!
Actually, gentle readers, you have to convince the insurance company(s) to not simply settle to minimize their losses (cost of defense and possible damages). To prevent exactly that all (NRO, STEYN, ETC) must be prepared to pay for the full defense and then damages if they lose.
I’m all for supporting steyn, etc, but keep in mind these lawyers are 1000/hr……..so your $20, $50, and 100 donations are laughable and pissing in the wind…..
This is a multi year/multi million dollar defense to just get to trial. I bet 4+ years and 7 million to get to trial. It cost 500k thus far …….now discovery…… millions, break out the check book. Discovery then trial. Damages? Appeal?
Settle…..
Mann has the backing…..do conservatives???? Doubt conservatives fight but who knows…..hope an Angel ponies up…. Rush could sneeze this defense……as could the Koch boys.
Actually, having a lawyer re_present you while you are already present is an admission of incompetence.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, not having a lawyer is a sign of your own stupidity and hubris, moron…..I hate lawyers, but they bill/use 10% of US GDP and control/affect vastly more. If you have money and do business you better have lots of lawyers…….
If what you do is insured, you better have a personal lawyer to sit on your insurance companies throat…..REPEAT> REPET> REPEAT If what you do is insured, you better have a personal lawyer to sit on your insurance companies throat…..
Steyn is going naked for now but will lawyer up unless he’s prepared to flee or try to bankrupt if he loses. More likely he accepts insurance settlement to Mann unless uncle Rush or another angel gets out the checkbook….
Mann’s argument described in Newsweek, 1,30,14-
“The words “hide the decline” had nothing to do with temperature, Mann says. The use of tree ring data as a proxy for temperature reconstruction was known to be useful only up to the 1960s, when the density of tree rings dropped in response to warming temperatures. In other words, the email wasn’t discussing declines in temperatures, but declines in tree ring growth. The divergence between tree ring data and temperature could not be explained, although some scientists theorized it had something to do with pollution. But it was no secret – it has been publicly discussed in peer-reviewed science journals since 1995. Either way, the decline in tree ring density compromised the quality of it as a proxy for temperature; the “hiding” phrase, while inartful, was referring to not displaying tree ring data over years when it was known to be misleading, Mann says.”
http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/01/31/change-legal-climate.html
The fee arrangement between Mann and his attorneys and the names of anyone financing Mann, their reasons for providing finance and on what terms, may not fall under attorney-client privilege. Any such agreements could therefore be discoverable.
In Priest v. Hennessy, which was in New York rather than Washington DC, the Court held:
“The fee arrangements between attorney and client do not ordinarily constitute a confidential communication and, thus, are not privileged in the usual case….. A communication concerning the fee to be paid has no direct relevance to the legal advice to be given. It is a collateral matter which, unlike communications which relate to the subject matter of the attorney’s professional employment, is not privileged.
“Nor does the payment of legal fees by a third person, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship between the attorney and his client’s benefactor sufficient to sustain a 70*70…. While such an arrangement may well be intended to be confidential, it is not, under ordinary circumstances, undertaken for the purpose of obtaining legal advice for the third party and, therefore, no attorney-client relationship arises between the third party and the attorney on the mere payment of attorney fees on behalf of another….The name of the person retaining an attorney for another and the amount of the retainer paid are quite simply not the confidences which the privilege was intended to protect.”
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5037478696276927663&q=Matter+of+Priest+v.+Hennessy,+%5B1980&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1
If Mann is a public figure, then he has no case. Numerous legal precedents in the US have established that public figures, having ample means at their disposal beyond the Law to counter public accusations of malfeasance, essentially cannot turn to the courts for redress of grievances.
And, Mann is indubitably a public figure.
Felix says:
February 4, 2014 at 11:21 am
“But could not Steyn’s crude Sandusky comparison, while not libelous in itself, be used as evidence of malice intent?”
No, because Steyn did not make that comparison. The other defendants did. Moreover, it was not directed at Mann but at Penn State. It was not in any way suggesting Mann was a child molester like Sandusky, but that Penn State’s internal “investigation” was of the same caliber as its indubitably subpar investigation of Sandusky.
Who is paying Mann’s defense?
JPS —
It seems to me that if Mann can convince the jury that he is not a fraud (that maybe he was wrong, not that he’d ever admit it, but not willfully so), then there’s a case to be made that Steyn made the statement with Reckless Disregard for its truth or falsity.
We recently had a long talk about this at Lucia’s. The trick is that Mann has to prove, not just that Steyn was careless, but that Steyn himself actually entertained “serious doubts” as to what he said. To really prove that is, and should be, a huge difficulty.
Of course, one a case survives all the motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, etc., you can tell the jury that…but then they can go back into their jury room and do whatever the heck they want. That is why I fear for Steyn’s well-being in this case.
Mike —
Malice is indeed a very difficult charge to get a conviction with. I really do hope Mann loses. But this move by Steyn doesn’t give me any confidence he has any idea how to defend himself. Remember, there are both sides in this case that need to present their cases in the strongest and most sound legal way possible. How many cases have we seen where one side lost, not because they should have lost, but because the case they presented to either prosecute or defend, was crap! I totally see that happening here.
In my opinion, Steyn, on principle, SHOULD prevail. But this is a court of law. He’d damned well better have his ducks in a row.
I couldn’t agree with you more! That is one reason I think the best thing for Steyn is to join the appeal — it’s based on free speech principles where Steyn’s case is strongest. And if he doesn’t appeal, or if heaven forbid the appeal fails, he’s going to need a good lawyer badly. I wrote him to say so. I hope he gets it, and listens.
Litigation can have terrible effects on a person’s psyche, whether he’s plaintiff or defendant, and unfortunately even a strong person’s judgment can skew badly when a case is driving him crazy. Whoever Steyn’s closest personal friends are, they should be talking him down off that ledge.
The fee arrangement between Mann and his attorneys and the names of anyone financing Mann, their reasons for providing finance and on what terms, may not fall under attorney-client privilege. Any such agreements could therefore be discoverable.
+++++++++++++++++++++
So what?
mfo says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:24 pm
“…the “hiding” phrase, while inartful, was referring to not displaying tree ring data over years when it was known to be misleading, Mann says.”
The fact is, there is no way to know when the tree ring data were misleading or not except in the specific time interval in which other measurements showed they were. Use of them before that time, therefore, was fundamentally circular logic – “the tree ring data before then are reliable because they show what we believe to be true, and we believe it to be true because the tree ring data indicate it.”
The Heartland Institute should be a good source. Particularly “ClimateGate Caught Green-Handed,” and its authors. Certainly, Singer, Soon, Spencer, Monckton, and Christy should have good material. Of course Lindzen should be able to help, as well as Steve Goreham, et al..
If Mann is a public figure, then he has no case.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
You people are sweet/idealistic….babes in the woods….simpletons, naïve.
You believe what’s right will prevail…haha….
Mann’s lawyers will put defendants through discovery to the tune of 5+ millions. If defendants fail to produce along the way they will get trial in which defendants are allowed no defense
It’s all about damages…..Unless there is a defense which will cost 10 million dollars.
Mann charges $10K as a public speaking engagements. It will be hard to argue he is not a public figure.
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:45 pm
“You people are sweet/idealistic….babes in the woods….simpletons, naïve.”
Faux sophistication is for adolescents. Yes, the defendants have their work cut out for them. But, no, it is not insurmountable.
Mann charges $10K as a public speaking engagements. It will be hard to argue he is not a public figure.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
So what.
You going to pony up millions to get it to trial and test your theory> Send Steyn $20 or $500 dollars. Whatever, it costs 3000-5000/hr.
You morons that think this is about principals are morons unless you have real money to prove your point….
BTW, Mann doesn’t have to settle……He can simply drag this out punitively to cost steyn et al whatever it costs….10 million dollars…….discovery, trial date 5+ years, cost of trial, payout……
Faux sophistication is for adolescents. Yes, the defendants have their work cut out for them. But, no, it is not insurmountable.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Agree, if you can show me the money and budget to win. Otherwise you’re a babe in the woods…………..
=====================================================================
No.
Steyn doesn’t have “Big” anything backing him while Mann has “Big Climate”.
Steyn has asked the grass roots that form “Big Blogs” for advice and help.
If you were being audited by the IRS, wouldn’t you go to where you knew there were tax law experts for advice?
Ask yourself just why is Mann’s ego worth the cash to those funding all his lawsuits? Maybe shutting up the “deniers” is worth it? Maybe they’re after more than just defending someone’s reputation?
Faux sophistication is for adolescents
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry my vocabulary and turn of phrase is beyond yours. I highly recommend private schools and collage if you can afford it. I earnestly doubt you could hang with me and my peeps in grad school…..cheers.
Michael Mann’s own paper from 2005 is a possible.
In Knight et al 2005 he establishes that the AMO is a real and persistent oscillation.
All that is required is to show the AMO oscillation is also present in HadCRUT and is responsible for more than a third of the temperature rise last century, because it was at bottom in 1906 and topped out in 2005. The IPCC uses the period 1906-2005 as their ‘century’.
If Mike Mann rejects this, he rejects his own work. If he accepts this he falsifies his statements that CO2 caused all warming.
(Of course the Sun caused most of the rest of the temperature rise last century, CO2 may have been responsible for about a sixth of it.)
“I highly recommend private schools and collage if you can afford it.”
LOL
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:13 pm
OK, Junior. Sorry I made you cry. Run along now and play with your, um, peeps.
Bart says: February 4, 2014 at 2:26 pm
Come and play, Bart, if you think you can hang with a rigorous graduate education and board certification….I think you are more the virtual type……
Michael Mann’s own paper from 2005 is a possible.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Insurance could care less and settles…..
Hey……Richard…….did your rigorous…….graduate……………education…….include classes on how to punctuate……..ellipses………
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Faux sophistication is for adolescents
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sorry my vocabulary and turn of phrase is beyond yours. I highly recommend private schools and collage if you can afford it. I earnestly doubt you could hang with me and my peeps in grad school…..cheers
At least this COLLEGE dropout can spell it. But, then again, perhaps “collage” is a better description of your and your “peeps”?
@ reg nelson. Whatever LOL
James the Elder says: February 4, 2014 at 3:02 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not surprised when spelling bee champions drop out of college
Meanwhile, Steyn faces millions to defend and possible damages and you idiots think it’s what right or wrong LOL….
I would consider Mann’s emails at UVa as necessary for discovery.
I have read elsewhere that Mr. Steyn is representing himself. This seems to me to be an extraordinarily foolish decision (if true). Perhaps it is due to financial constraints. In any case, I would like to see Mr. Steyn clarify the situation, for if he is representing himself I rather doubt he will be successful.
I would consider Mann’s emails at UVa as necessary for discovery
+++++++++++++++++
dream on……Steyn will be answering what kind of toothpaste he uses
Richard,
If Mann’s benefactors stand to benefit from the outcome of the case then according to my research on “donative intent” the benefit could fall under income and not non-taxable gift. Mann could be facing a huge tax bill if he is not careful to cross his T’s and dot his i’s.
If Penn State or Penn State officials are involved in any way which is a huge possibility with the fund being started by Penn State grad Scott Mandia. This organization appears to be created by academics and academic institutions as such gifts from it would fall under IRS rule Rev. Rul. 60-14.
“Revenue rulings and other tax authorities set a high bar for finding a gift in connection with contributions either to legal defense funds or to politicians. In Rev. Rul. 60-14,30 sums contributed to a committee organized to raise funds for a taxpayer’s legal defense were income to the taxpayer and not gifts. The taxpayer, an official of an organization, was involved in litigation of a personal nature, but the litigation focused national attention on the organization. Although money contributed would go to pay the individual’s litigation costs, the officials of the organization formed the legal defense committee “for the professed purpose of counteracting unfavorable publicity” and raised funds from members of the organization. The committee made regular reports to the organization’s executive board. Excess funds were turned over to the organization. On those facts, the funds expended by the committee were not gifts to the taxpayer but constituted gross income to him. The committee’s aim of benefiting the organization indicated lack of donative intent. ”
It all kind of hinges on just how much Penn State and Penn State officials have been involved in this.
Tom says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Poor baby,,,,You’ve never been sued in the united states…..
I don’t think the consensus in the climate science community re Mann’s work protects Mann nearly as much as people seem to think. That opinion cannot simply be read into the record, that would be hearsay. They would have to come to court and testify.
That changes the game, and substantively so. If you testify under oath, and it later becomes evident that you lied, that’s perjury, which has some potential nasty consequences. So to support Mann’s hockey stick in public is one thing. To support it under oath in the face of a skilled cross examination is another thing. Risking one’s grants and position to maintain a story line is one thing, going to jail for it is another.
Mann’s supporters may not line up to support him, they’ll cover their own arse before they cover his. Double whammy for Mann because if they don’t, the court will be asked to draw a negative inference from their absence.
That said, I agree with many of the comments above. The law is only as good as your ability to enforce it. It takes a massive amount of money to defend something like this, and a massive amount of time.
My post has nothing to do with suit in the united states only Tax law.
From what I have researched gifts are only non-taxable if they are given altruistically. If there is a donative intent to the benefit of the donor then the gifts are income be this money or pro bono legal work.
You’re a smart guy Millions to defend beyond insurance. How much can I put you down for?
I didn’t [word] that right. If the intent is not altruistic then you aren’t really donating it. You are expecting something in return. If you stand to benefit from the donation then it really isn’t’ a donation. Donative intent is broken and the money is considered income to the other party.
I’m not playing your non sequitur you are just a troll.
From what I have researched gifts are only non-taxable if they are given altruistically. +++++++++++++++++++++++
Lets send Steyn a $20 and lose big time….
Tom says: February 4, 2014 at 3:50 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Stay in school, Tom I doubt it helps, much….
Already got my degrees junior.
=======================================================================
Uh…you might want to ask one of your collage peeps to proofread for you before you hit the “post comment” button.
I work with a guy who actually is like you are trying to sound. (For your sake, I sure hope you’re just having a bit of personal fun and aren’t really the pompous ass you come off as being.)
My coworker knows he doesn’t know everything. But if he doesn’t know it, then it’s not worth knowing. He’s proven himself to be wrong on both counts … but he doesn’t seem to know that.
Richard, lose the attitude. You may well be a legend in your own mind, but belittling others is neither becoming of respect, nor helping Steyn (or perhaps Mann, of whom you seem to be a fan).
From 2 hours ago:
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/02/03/penn-staters-lawsuit-kill-americas-leading-conservative-magazine/
There is growing talk that a defamation lawsuit by Penn State scientist Michael Mann could kill of National Review, the magazine founded by William F. Buckley back in the 1950s one of the creators of the modern conservative movement.
How could this happen? Well, to recap: Back in 2012, National Review contributing writer Mark Steyn referred to Mann—a climate scientist—as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate change,” quoting another conservative writer in accusing Mann of manipulating data to prove the existence of climate change, and Penn State’s administration for covering up:
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
Mann sued National Review for defamation. He’s won some early procedural skirmishes in the lawsuit so far. And that’s led to this point:
And National Review’s interest could be fighting for its continued existence. As Damon Linker first noted in The Week, it’s unlikely the magazine could afford a payout, or even a protracted legal battle. Until recently, National Review Online was displaying an appeal for contributions to a legal defense fund for Mann’s lawsuit. As Steyn said, the defendants had already lost, by having to spend 15 months of time and money on the case. But he didn’t see the magazine’s demise as likely. “In a turbulent world, a lot of things could potentially doom National Review,” he said, “but this frivolous suit won’t be one of them.”
Linker elaborates:
Now, the lawsuit may well be dismissed down the road. But the longer it continues, the more likely it becomes that Mann will eventually prevail, either by forcing an expensive settlement or by prevailing in court and winning a substantial penalty from the defendants…
Richard D…. you have no idea how silly you have made yourself look. Now, go amuse yourself by pasting pretty pictures in a scrap book. May I also suggest you stop sniffing the glue?
One question. Did any of these high-powered schools teach you how to spell, or word definitions, or the proper use of a spell checker?
You know, if this comes to trial, it could be THE turning point in the Great Lie (of climatism)–assuming Steyn not only wins legally, but also convinces the onlooking media that he made Mann look bad. Mann = the Team = The IPCC = Climatism in the media’s mind. Knock down Mann and the other dominoes will fall–or wobble unsettlingly, anyway. They’ll be weaker thereafter.
This skirmish could turn into a decisive battle, IOW. So let’s rally round the flag!
john
First Mann has no damages. That is something that is often over looked here by both sides. Mann cant show that he has lost any money. So bankrupting national review is a huge stretch even if libel is established he then has to show damages.
Second, loser plays.
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:45 pm
“You people are sweet/idealistic….babes in the woods….simpletons, naïve.”
what a cynic. Guess we should all just fold our tents and go home cuz it costs 1/2 a million bucks to get through the anti-SLAPP phase of a trial. I’m sure that was the intent of all that anti-SLAPP legislation. Maybe Steyn’s shining a light on how low this once great US legal system has sunk is worth a few bucks. I’m betting even lawyers can be embarrassed at some point. Steyn doesn’t need a $2k per hour lawyer. He had that and after a year of silence got 2 pdf’s and a so sorry, you have to go to trial cuz you said something you didn’t actually say but you might have said if I read the amended complaint right, etc, etc, etc. I think some recent law school grad who wants to make a name for himself could do just as well as the yahoos from Steptoe and Johnson. Who knows, and this is a real stretch, at some point maybe even some liberals will be embarrassed by what’s happened to our legal system. You’re like one of those people who scoffs at the guy going in to disarm the run-away nuclear reactor on your submarine. Yeah, lotta good that’s gonna do, hoser! I’m gonna sit here and look superior.
Here is a spooky little opinion piece by Mann in the NYT.
If You See Something, Say Something (HIS WORDS).
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — THE overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a fringe minority of our populace clings to an irrational rejection of well-established science. This virulent strain of anti-science infects the halls of Congress, the pages of leading newspapers and what we see on TV, leading to the appearance of a debate where none should exist.
In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet. If one is looking for real differences among mainstream scientists, they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, and which technologies and policies offer the best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the emission of greenhouse gases.
For example, should we go full-bore on nuclear power? Invest in and deploy renewable energy — wind, solar and geothermal — on a huge scale? Price carbon emissions through cap-and-trade legislation or by imposing a carbon tax? Until the public fully understands the danger of our present trajectory, those debates are likely to continue to founder…
There is a little known technique to disarming the plaintiff’s liars. It’s supposedly the established practice or rule, the plaintiff MUST be present in the courtroom. If an attorney represents the plaintiff, object to and/or bar the attorney from speaking due to their lack of direct first-hand knowledge of the matter.
The above information is theoretical in nature. More research would be needed to bring it to life. However, the upside rewards would be priceless in seeing Mann have to personally argue his case to the court…
what a cynic. Guess we should all just fold our tents and go home cuz it costs 1/2 a million bucks to get through the anti-SLAPP phase of a trial.
+++++++++++++++++
yep
There is a little known technique to disarming the plaintiff’s liars. It’s supposedly the established practice or rule, the plaintiff MUST be present in the courtroom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, it will cost you 5 to 10 million dollars to test your theory…………..
===============================================================
Kind of makes one wonder if Mann isn’t Hansen’s love child. But he didn’t mention “Coal Trains of Death” so there is still a doubt.
Mike Alexander, “The scientific community where Mann’s work exists, has accepted that the “hide the decline” bit is sound and scientific.”
That won’t matter. What matters is a factual demonstration that Mann falsified his work. That demonstration is readily available. After that, the accepting “scientific community” will end up looking either foolish or complicit.
john says:
February 4, 2014 at 4:09 pm
It’s just Lefty fantasy and self-pleasuring. Pay it no mind. NR’s insurance will take care of most of their costs. Pace the jejune cynicism of certain underpass dwellers in this thread, Mann doesn’t stand a chance, and he will eventually throw in towel if the defendants refuse, themselves, to cave.
What matters is a factual demonstration that Mann falsified his work._____________________________________________
If you have 10 million dollars to take it to trial and the resources to pay out if you lose. And the appeal….
stargazer says:
February 4, 2014 at 4:14 pm
“Richard D…. you have no idea how silly you have made yourself look. Now, go amuse yourself by pasting pretty pictures in a scrap book. May I also suggest you stop sniffing the glue?
One question. Did any of these high-powered schools teach you how to spell, or word definitions, or the proper use of a spell checker?”
Quicker trigger than me, sir. But don’t be too hard on him. The lighting in Mom’s basement is probably not the best.
Bart says: February 4, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Mann doesn’t stand a chance, and he will eventually throw in towel if the defendants refuse, themselves, to cave.
++++++++++
Insurance will cave….and Steyn is at odds with insurance and is representing himself against Mann and his 1000/hr tobacco lawyer.
Quicker trigger than me, sir. But don’t be too hard on him.
+++++++++++++++++++++
No comment from you regarding the discussion? Beyond your ability so run along to the politics blogs over at the guardian or salon….
Mike Alexander: “What is Steyn going to do when Mann presents statements from all his colleagues, three dozen or so who are fellow climatologists working iin the same field, plus the IPCC reports, all saying the technique is sound, and all Steyn has are a handful of scientists and bloggers who say it’s not. Which side is the average jury going to be more receptive to?”
You’re saying that Steyn can’t find 3 dozen climate scientists and those in related fields like statistics and physics who think the Hockey Stick is bunk? You haven’t been paying attention, Mike. Check out this list at DesmogBlog:
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database
Now not all of them would be good witnesses, but a lot of them would.
Secondly, they will have to prove that Steyn said what he said knowing that it was false. That will nearly be impossible to do, for the simple reason that Steyn still believes it to be true.
It’s also eminently arguable that calling the Hockey stick “fraudulent” is very different from accusing Mann of committing academic fraud. Steyn could very easily have been referring to the repeated use of it after it was shown to be dubious by McInyre and McKittrick, among others.
It’s been awhile but if I recall, Mark just repeated something Rand Simberg had written in an article about the Sandusky-Mann-Penn State data/child molestation connection.
Mark went on to say in his own piece “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point.”…”If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up?”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/
I doubt Mann has a case and I doubt Penn State wants this beast’s ugly head raised.
cn
This case in an absolute joke and should of been thrown out. The only phrase that can be remotely considered defamation is, “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
Steyn quoted this phrase at NRO, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn and explicitly said, “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does,”
Thanks to the first amendment, everyone is entitled to their opinion, including Steyn.
The phrase has since been removed from the CEI website, http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/ where it originated, http://web.archive.org/web/20120719002233/http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13/the-other-scandal-in-unhappy-valley/
Mann has no case as he is not a Nobel Laureate, so good luck proving that in court. Steyn should call Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute in court as he already made this clear,
http://www.examiner.com/article/professor-mann-claims-to-win-nobel-prize-nobel-committee-says-he-has-not
1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.
3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.
Michael Mann should be sued for fraudulently presenting himself as personally receiving the IPCC Nobel Award.
Tobacco lawyer? This begs the question, did the lawyer defend tobacco, or its victims? If the former, time to make a MannVooDoo figure and stick it full of pins.
I doubt Mann has a case
+++++++++++++++++++
Funny, 500k so far and millions to go. But it’s not your money so doubt on…
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Yes, you have expressed that opinion, and those who would be influenced by it have been.
Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:05 pm
John B. Williams, Cozen O’Connor. The former.
Bart says: February 4, 2014 at 5:15 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
It would be interesting and unusual if you actually engaged debate, as opposed to discussing personalities, Bart…It’s well known the science is beyond your grasp.
Anthony
I hope you’ll consider pinning this thread for a few days. It’s a very important event on a number of levels. In particular a win by Steyn could cast a long shadow over the rest of the Hockey Team and their defenders. I’ve seen what I thought were a few really strong ideas/themes brought up by others. Perhaps there’s more.
The Richard Mueller Utube video condemns Manns splicing of modern temp record onto tree proxy.I recall he even states his fellow scientists agree Mann committed a “no no”.
Clearly he considers it scientific malfeasance.
Chuck Nolan,
I’m not so sure the Penn State wants to keep this on the down low. I personally dont believe that Mann would never be allowed to make a stink like this without Penn State’s approval. Mann has been threatening to sue people for close to a decade but has never done so. Now someone rubs salt into the Jerry Sandusky wound and suddenly he sues? No. Penn State gave him the go ahead IMHO.
Which is why I’m beginning to think that Mann could face a huge tax bill under IRS Rev. Rul. 60-14. If Penn State or Penn State officials are working behind the scenes on this then donative intent is broken and all the money and pro bono legal work isn’t a tax fee gift, its taxable income under the rule.
This case will end up over a million for both sides, probably 2. Quick what is 42%(federal and state) of $2,000,000.
It’s really sad that no one here understands that money decides this lawsuit. All of the kiddies eating popcorn and rooting for discovery – here’s you’re chance. Send real money to Steyn. Not twenty’s or hundreds but tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands…. millions and you get your dream. Sell your home and 401k-that would be a small down payment. POPCORN!!!!
davidmhoffer says: @ February 4, 2014 at 3:40 pm
I don’t think the consensus in the climate science community re Mann’s work protects Mann nearly as much as people seem to think. That opinion cannot simply be read into the record, that would be hearsay. They would have to come to court and testify.
That changes the game, and substantively so. If you testify under oath, and it later becomes evident that you lied, that’s perjury, which has some potential nasty consequences….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mann also has to get the others in the climate science community to testify willingly. Dragging an unwilling person in to testify via subpoena can really back fire, especially since I doubt Mikey is well liked by the rest of the ‘Team’™
As you said lying under oath is not something people are going to do willingly especially when the whole CAGW scam is falling apart and they darn well know it.
I think it is going to be every man for himself and Mann may find himself without an ‘Angel’ to pay for his expenses within the next three years.
That said Mark Steyn needs a darn good lawyer. Unfortunately they are few and far between.
Any statistics from the “lawyer-up” people to support the claim that representation by lawyers is a good idea?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Corpus Juris Secondum
Volume 7, Section 4: Attorney & Client
His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties of his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.
[…]
A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim or defending against a suit in a court of justice, one who retains the attorney, is responsible to him for fees, and to whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit, one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called “wards of the court” in relationship to their attorneys.
[…]
Wards of the court. Infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian.
http://www.gemworld.com/us–attorneyclient.htm
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is going to cause catastrophic global warming, climate change, climate weirding – and the evidence is, apparently, that Michael Mann has loadsa money with which to file a lawsuit and maybe win.
Yep, add that to the “overwhelming” scientific evidence ……………
Go on Richard, just for laughs, give us one bullet point of scientific evidence. Here, I’ll help:
(a) (fill in the blank)
I second pinning this topic, as Mann’s attack on free speech should be exposed.
Lawsuits don’t have to be that expensive. NR didn’t have to hire Steptoe and Johnson so they could burn thru 1/2 a million bucks trying to convince the judge which defendant was Steyn. That’s Steyn’s point. The legal system in this country doesn’t give you a whole lot of bang for the buck. You don’t need a $2k per hour lawyer to defend nonsense. Any public defender would do. We’ll see how it works out for him. The left can give up on free speech if they really want to get Steyn that bad, but it’ll set one hell of a precedent. People will be lining up to sue Mann for libel, and they’ll have a pretty broad interpretation of libel to back up their claim thanks to his “victory.”
Mann would have to admit to incompetence to prove that he is not a fraud. As his ego will never accept that he will eventually loose this case. But Steyn needs to get a good lawyer.
Steyn is a fool, a pathetic excuse for a grown man, and that was my considered opinion long before he got himself into this sorry mess.
Anyhow, Mann certainly is worse. If Steyn wants to defend his use of the label ‘fraud’ for Mann, then he should argue that he considers Mann highly intelligent, having gotten a PhD degree in physics and then, in no time, a professorship at a very reputable university. It is just not believable that such an evidently and eminently intelligent man should have unknowingly committed the blunder in applying basic statistical principles that he did indeed commit.
To prove the point that Mann did commit an egregious blunder, Steyn should arm himself to the teeth with expertises from the appropriate statistics experts, as strongly worded as those experts may be willing to express themselves.
Mann also has a history of refusing to share code and data – if his mistake had indeed been an honest one, he should have had no motive to hide the evidence. His refusal to share it runs counter to the ethos of openness towards fellow scientists, which is a cornerstone of true science; his unethical secretiveness is another indication that he he has long been aware of the grave flaws in his work, which he nevertheless continues to defend and spread in public to this day. Again, these refusals should be documented in detail.
Finally, Mann has steadfastly refused to acknowledge his errors and to retract his erroneous work even after his errors were clearly pointed out to him by several statistics experts, and at the same time he has not offered a substantial rebuttal.
On the whole, Mann’s behaviour paints a clear picture of sustained and intentional deception – he has so consistently and systematically engaged in fraud that he indeed is a fraud.
“All of the kiddies eating popcorn and rooting for discovery ”
Richard, discovery request forms are boilerplate – they cost the ink and the paper (less than 50 cents). Steyn needs an Attorney to make sure he complies with the local rules but, even then, Judges apply a lot of latitude to individuals filing pro se.
…. and if Mann refuses to produce the documents requested, he will be thrown out of Court. I don’t eat popcorn, but we either will or we won’t see Mann’s e-mails yukking it up with Briffa and Jones about what a scientific stud he is with his hockey stick – or whatever it is he’s hiding.
Most likely “won’t” because he will probably get a protective order so that Steyn can’t put them on the internet.
It seems that Richard D. Is panicking about ‘Costs’,
Is he praying or paying for Mann?
Just askin.
My bolding for emphasis.
Richard provides us with a clear example of a troll thread bombing. He happily insults people personally, demeans their intelligence and yet despite how narcissistic Richard is; Richard clearly over estimates his education, intelligence and language skill.
Principals, e.g. are those characters in charge of schools, a term implied by they’re being ‘chief’ or first in administering the school.
Perhaps you were trying to infer ‘principles’? A quality you desperately need.
In spite of my bad example responding to the adolescent, pay heed to “Do not feed the trolls!”. Attention is their desire and the lack of attention is their scourge.
Seems to me that Steyn has *some* resources. For example, Muller’s video where he slams “hide the decline”, the Wegman report, the adjusting of temp data, ozone scientists (according to Lovelock) faking or incompletely recording 80% of the ozone data…
And why can’t he get access to Mann’s UVA emails to make his case (assuming this is possible)? Aren’t they public records subject to FOIA requests.
…. and, by the way, Steyn can request documents from anyone he f*cking wants to. Any potential e-mail recipients that he thinks Mann may have written to at that time – even if it’s 500 people (yes Richard, for the cost of the ink on the paper + some relatively small attorney fees). If he finds any e-mails in their inboxes that Mann deleted and denied, then that would be a big problem for hockey stick fake climate stud.
Interesting post and comments about this topic over at popehat: http://www.popehat.com/2012/10/23/michael-mann-sues-nro-mark-steyn-the-competitive-enterprise-institute-and-rand-simberg/
Mann is playing with other people’s money, and his happy to do so, up to a point. But he has too many skeletons in his closet to see this through to a jury verdict.
My questions are:
– At what point does Mikey pull back and drop the suit? Will it actually go that far?
– Are Steyn and the other defendants entitled to recover legal (and punitive?) costs at that point?
– If the case doesn’t make it to trial, is the discovery confidential, or can it be released publicly?
Tom says:
February 4, 2014 at 4:17 pm
“…………………Second,loser plays.”
___________________________________________________________________________
Sorry old chap, this is the US and loser doesn’t pay.
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Bart says: February 4, 2014 at 5:15 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Bart…It’s well known the science is beyond your grasp.
====================================
Well go on then you scientific wanker, take him on on any subject of your choice.
There will be a big crowd watching Bambi vs. Godzilla.
There might some pointers of what to look for here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
Mike,
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Steyn is the defendant, and he does not have to prove Mann committed fraud.
Mann has to prove that Steyn knew Mann didn’t commit fraud, but said he did even though he knew it was false, and he did so with malicious intent.
If Mann can prove that Steyn knew Mann had committed no fraud, but said so anyway, with malicious intent, then he must then prove that Steyn’s comments financially damaged Mann in some demonstrable, calculable and quantifiable manner.
Mike, you clearly are no lawyer, nor do you understand the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant, nor the burdens of proof appurtenant thereto.
Furthermore, the court has already stipulated that Mann is a public figure with respect to the issues that will be litigated.
All the judge said is that he would not dismiss the case. The standard of not dismissing — plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits — says nothing about who will win or lose the case; all it says is the case is colorable and the merits should be determined by a tryor of fact, i.e., that if all of the plaintiffs claims and facts are true, and unrebutted, and unmitigated by other facts and claims and counter claims, etc., that a tryor of fact might plausibly find for the plaintiff. If it meant that the plaintiff would win, there would be no need for a a trial.
Steyn you may consider, if you lose the case ,declaring bankrupcy.
That end game may relieve much of the mental stress incurred during the process.
If you cant lose anything,just have a blast tearing “NoNo” Mann a new hole.
The CENSORED folder is proof of fraud. The extreme overweighting of one proxy, bristlecone pines at one location, to achieve the blade of the stick, is proof (it couldn’t have been accidental, repeatedly).
As for his colleagues, many of them denounced his work, “in private”, in the CRU emails. They would be shown to be flat out liars, and therefore not credible witnesses, if they said otherwise.
Witnesses against the Womann-named-Sue? How about the 31,000 signers of the Oregon Petition? Pretty strong statement that everything the Womann-named-Sue says is BS. And a helluva lot more real scientists than the phonies lining up behind the Womann-named-Sue.
Steyn, would in my opinion do well to discover evidence of a pattern of dishonest behaviour, particularly in climategate, twitter etc. He should also look at statements that misrepresent the science. This since “fraud” in the context used was a belief that he was not honestly representing the truth.
In particular, items where Mann has defended the hockeystick after it was disproven by McKintyre, while this does not prove Mann is misrepresenting , it does establish that there was good reason for Steyn to believe he was misrepresenting the truth.
Discovery on his facebook, twitter accounts and e-mail including deleted records should help. I’d also sopoena his employment contracts, and other work contracts, and all submissions made for funding that involve Mann in any capacity, including all correspondance as well as the grant awards and their “conditions”. It goes without saying that this includes his contemporaneous UVa email, applications, grants, and correspondance.
Also woth doing would be a search for Mann’s correspondance that name him.
I can ellucidate why if he wants, and Anthony has my permission to forward my email for this purpose.
philincalifornia says:
February 4, 2014 at 7:30 pm
Richard D says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Bart says: February 4, 2014 at 5:15 pm
+++++++++++++++++++
Bart…It’s well known the science is beyond your grasp.
====================================
Well go on then you scientific wanker, take him on on any subject of your choice.
There will be a big crowd watching Bambi vs. Godzilla.
———
http://dai.ly/xfnuxv
Michael Palmer says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:09 pm
Steyn is a fool, a pathetic excuse for a grown man, and that was my considered opinion long before he got himself into this sorry mess.
————————-
Steyn is the most talented polemicist of our age. Who the hell are you?
Remember, in the Scopes monkey trial, John Scopes was found guilty.
It didn’t matter in the big picture. W.J. Bryan was really the winner…
Gail Combs;
Mann also has to get the others in the climate science community to testify willingly. Dragging an unwilling person in to testify via subpoena can really back fire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yup. Just had another thought, which is that the Wegman Commission findings are part of the congressional record. Don’t know if that allows for them to be read into the court proceedings as is or not, but would be a hoot if they could be. If they can’t, having Wegman testify would be an even bigger hoot.
It really is a hoot. In Medieval times, this would be about the time they would be beheaded or hung up to rot at crossroads.
So now we will see what happens in the Internet age.
Just had another thought, which is that the Wegman Commission findings are part of the congressional record. Don’t know if that allows for them to be read into the court proceedings as is or not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m not a lawyer, but seems to me the findings of a government commission are something that someone like Steyn ought to be able to rely upon. What’s Mann’s side going to do? Argue that Steyn should have ignored congressional testimony? Even if Mann’s attorneys were able to discredit the report via the smear tactics we saw used against it recently, they’d have to prove that Steyn was aware of them and had reason to believe them and not Wegman. Tall order.
Without big bucks to back him, Mann’s case wouldn’t pass the laugh test in my books. It only has traction because the legal system has detailed policies and procedures that must be followed and high priced attorneys can talk you into buying your own clothes while insisting you stole them from yourself if you aren’t careful.
In 1998 Mann created the infamous hockey stick temperature chart.
In Dec 2008 Mann created another temperature chart with much of the Medieval Warm Period left in.
The second paper shows the first was fraudulent, if the information available in 1998 gave substantially the same result as the 2008 paper, before subtracting the ‘censored data’ leaving a hockey stick. The data available in 1998 produces essentially the same chart as in 2008, but data was selectively dropped, and ‘compliant data’ was enhanced in effect by weighting it to give support to a particular politically desirable narrative.
It is not necessary to look outside the works to M Mann to find proof that the hockey stick paper was deliberately created to give a false impression with wording crafted to reinforce that false impression, knowing all the while that the data did not support it. That it was willful is demonstrated by his reaction to having it debunked in a paper by M&M in 2003. He did not accept the ‘criticism’ but maintained that the 1998 paper was factually correct and represented reality. Later a different reality was presented based on essentially the same type of data by his own pen.
Mann’s fellow scientists, no matter how strident in their calls of alarm over CO2 and no matter how urgent their claims that the UN needs 200 billion dollars a year to ‘mitigate the effects of human-caused global warming’ have, for technical or ethical reasons, abandoned the 1998 paper’s deliberate misrepresentation of reality. I can’t see anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a scientist backing the hockey stick and how it was created. Why? Because from all appearances, the hockey stick and its attendant claims it were deliberately created to foster the incorrect notion that there was no MWP (later adjusted to claiming there was one but in Europe only).
The facts are there and it boils down to intent to deceive, which on balance is pretty evident, multiple times.
Little Dickie D, who pals around with “peeps” and can’t spell college, talks about the power of money in litigation as if he has some or knows someone who does. I think Steyn accepts this challenge with or without the money, and I don’t think Little Dickie D can get his little dickie head around the reason. This will be a legal war, unconventional and asymmetrical. Steyn is right and appears to be finding his footing. Fire the drones. Open the process. Shine the light.
Here’s a provocative quote from Richard S Courtney on the popehat thread that Daryl M linked to:
If Steyn possessed evidence prior to printing his story then why would he need help finding evidence now? If he didn’t have evidence then he should not have made the comments in the first place.
This is not hard and the fact that he is flailing around for help in this area now will provide evidence for Mann’s lawyer that he made those statements without any foundation. He has really just admitted his guilt in this manner
after discovery, Steyn needs to have an expert in jury selection. Getting the right jury is more than half the battle. If the judge is a CAGW moonbat, which is likely, Steyn needs to request a jury trial.
He’ll need expert help with that jury selection.
Developing a Supplemental Juror Questionnaire
Crafting voir dire questions
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of focus group and mock trial participants, as well as survey respondents.
Steyn needs to hire Robert Hirschhorn and hope that Mann does not have a pro of that quality.
“Robert B. Hirschhorn is an attorney and a nationally recognized expert in jury and trial consultation. He is a co-author of Blue’s Guide to Jury Selection, which is currently available from Thompson-West Publishing. Mr. Hirschhorn has been a jury consultant since 1985. In 2005, he selected juries that returned more than $750 Million in verdicts. Those cases include Lexar v. Toshiba (breach of fiduciary duty; $461 Million) and Ernst v. Merck (1st Vioxx litigation; $253 Million). He has also assisted lawyers in many high-profile criminal cases including State of Florida v. William Kennedy Smith (sexual assault charges, not guilty verdict), State v. U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (ethics charges, not-guilty verdict), and State v. Robert Durst (acquitted of murder charges). Mr. Hirschhorn has appeared on Good Morning America, MSNBC, Court TV, CNN, Dateline NBC, 48 Hours, Nightline, and many national radio programs. He lectures nationwide to lawyers and judges on the art of jury selection.”
As well as last summer’s Zimmerman trial. The TV did not show the faces of the potential jurors during voir dire. But it was fascinating to watch Hirchhorn’s eagle eye as he focused in on every word, and every nuance of micro expression, as O’Mara whittled it down to the all important “deciders of fact”
kramer says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm
“For example, Muller’s video where he slams “hide the decline”…”
Link to the video. Pretty damning stuff. Go to 33:35 for the good bit.
harebell says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
” … He has really just admitted his guilt in this manner.”
—-l
Do you feel he has no chance of of being found not guilty by a court of law?
I know nothing of how the law works in the US, but I can tell you that from my personal experience, to expect justice from a court in the UK is tantamount to pissing in the rain.
@Mike Alexander says: February 4, 2014 at 9:29 am
And I’m sorry, but a few blog-post from Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts or anyone else is not going to be able to convince anyone that Mann committed fraud,especially since the scientific community says he didn’t.
====================================================
Who defines who constitutes the “scientific community”? Here, BEST’s Richar Muller makes it pretty clear that he thinks Mann cooked the books. (Can I say that? I did say that)
Bart says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:12 am
Bart beat me to it. Still, that’s two of us pointing to this damning video.
Mann’s a public figure … you can call him a fraud all day long without repercussion …. period … no “proof” required … EVEN if you don’t believe it …
I would advise Steyn to try extremely hard to stop this case from turning on the issue of whether or not Mann committed fraud. Because that is the road to disaster. Courts love to talk about fraud. Judges know all about fraud. This case will turn into a case about whether or not Mann committed fraud unless Steyn fights extremely hard to prevent it from going there.
Steyn should stress that he didn’t accuse Mann of committing fraud. He said that the hockey stick was “fraudulent”. Lets look at the dictionary to see what the word “fraudulent” means when applied to something like a graph.
The first point he must stress is that the definition says “especially criminal deception” it doesn’t say “exclusively criminal deception”. In context the phrase “fraudulent hockey stick” is not accusing Mann of having committed a crime. He is merely suggesting that the hockey stick graph was “obtained, done by, or involving deception”. Or possibly he means the word to indicate that the hockey stick graph is “crooked bent or dodgy”. Or how about “tricky” as in “Mike’s nature trick”, and “hide the decline”. If Steyn can get the court to accept that the word “fraudulent”, especially when applied to something like a graph, is not per se an accusation of criminal fraud but can have the other meanings listed in the dictionary, then he has the case half won. If he lets Mann’s lawyers turn this into a case about whether or not Mann committed the crime of fraud, then he is DEADBEEF.
Finally courts are bound by precedent. There will be numerous precedents on the use of the word “fraudulent” in libel cases. Steyn needs to know what they are. Manns lawyers will produce precedents that say the word “fraudulent” is per se an accusation that the crime of fraud has been committed. Steyn MUST be able to counter this with precedents that show the word “fraudulent” can have other meanings and he must then mount a strong argument that his precedents are a lot closer to the facts of the case than Mann’s ones.
Preferably precedents should have been set in the jurisdiction where the case is being tried. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Mann’s lawyers have already looked into this and chose the jurisdiction precisely because the precedents there favor his interpretation. I would urge Mr Steyn to get legal assistance, especially with regard to this business of looking into precedents, because a non-lawyer can’t easily get access to the documents required to look this kind of thing up, and there are some big gotchas involved (citing as a precedent a case that was later overturned on appeal for example).
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer – this isn’t legal advice – blah blah blah – don’t listen to a word I say because I’m just some ignorant anonymous twit on the internet and you don’t know where I’ve been – nobody takes me seriously anyway – yes it is ridiculous that I have to make this disclaimer.
The discourse at WUWT is next. Unless Mann, in a discrediting public way, is seen to be made to withdraw or actually loses. And the attack won’t be limited to Mann or to lawsuits. They will use other aspects of coercion and of government to do it as well.
Above: “the investigation could make this case as important for ‘climate science’ as the Scopes Trial was for the science of evolution.” Mann and alarmists would be quite happy for that outcome. Tipping schools and press to an even more one-sided presentation would be quite the feather in their cap. And no, the answer is not to be quiet so they won’t go after us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
harebell says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
If Steyn possessed evidence prior to printing his story then why would he need help finding evidence now? If he didn’t have evidence then he should not have made the comments in the first place.
This is not hard and the fact that he is flailing around for help in this area now will provide evidence for Mann’s lawyer that he made those statements without any foundation. He has really just admitted his guilt in this manner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Looking for more evidence is not having no foundation. And you don’t need much of a foundation to express an opinion. What guilt? (PS, this is a court to determine a question of liability, not guilt. Liable for what damage when the guy discredits himself thoroughly anyway and has received similar treatment across the board from numerous critics?) What “damage” is there from this and, more importantly, so what, since it is true?
In Feudal times we had Trial by Combat. Each side would choose a champion to do battle, and the battle would decide the outcome of the trial. Today’s legal system is similar.
The legal system is purposely designed to be expensive. Very expensive. So expensive that the parties involved would rather settle than continue to do battle. The purpose of the legal system is not to decide truth, it is to settle disputes.
If you enter the legal system expecting truth you will be disappointed. This is not the purpose of the courts. The courts exist to provide an alternative to taking matters into your own hands.
kramer says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm
Seems to me that Steyn has *some* resources. For example, Muller’s video where he slams “hide the decline”,
Bart says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:12 am
kramer says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm
“For example, Muller’s video where he slams “hide the decline”…”
Link to the video. Pretty damning stuff. Go to 33:35 for the good bit.
Which has nothing to do with Michael Mann so why bring it up?
Bart@12:12, Jeremy99@3:30,
Muller actually makes a mistake in that video. The controversy over “hide the decline” is not about data for the decline being unavailable. It is about the decline not being shown in graphs for policy makers. Muller repeats this mistake in his book, “Energy for Future Presidents”. They still hid the decline and there is a good three part YouTube presentation by McIntyre.
Phil.:
In your post at February 5, 2014 at 7:03 am you assert about “Mike’s Nature trick”
Really, “Mike’s Nature trick” “has nothing to do with Michael Mann”?
Which “Mike” was it then?
Richard
***
ATheoK says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:49 pm
“Richard D says: February 4, 2014 at 1:56 pm
…
You morons that think this is about principals are morons unless you have real money to prove your point….”
and again Richard D says:
and again Richard D says:
and again Richard D says:
ad nauseum Richard D says:
My bolding for emphasis.
Richard provides us with a clear example of a troll thread bombing.
***
+1
Paulo deSouza says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:43 pm
“after discovery, Steyn needs to have an expert in jury selection. Getting the right jury is more than half the battle. If the judge is a CAGW moonbat, which is likely, Steyn needs to request a jury trial.”
I wouldn’t. I’d argue it before a judge. I want a judge’s ruling on this one. I want it on the record. No way I want Mann hiding behind jury nullification. Let the judge explain how a couple of articles over the course of 10 years rises to the level of malice. Let the judge explain how reading “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline” doesn’t justify a disinterested third party’s opinion of fraud.
Some people on here seem to think that there’s no actual law involved in all of this. It’s all about money. It’s all about global warming. There’s tons of case law on what constitutes libel of a public figure. Judges know that law and the consequences of ignoring it, and they know that every court above them will be watching closely. Mann’s already lost anti-SLAPP protection in future cases thanks to his “victory.” If “fraudulent hockey stick” justifies this case going to trial, imagine how easy getting “Hi Andy [Revkin], The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud” past the anti-SLAPP goalie will be. Not that McIntyre or McKitrick would waste their time on a trial. Who really cares what a discredited, crappy climate scientist thinks, anyway?
harebell says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
If Steyn possessed evidence prior to printing his story then why would he need help finding evidence now? If he didn’t have evidence then he should not have made the comments in the first place.
—————————–
You are conflating “having evidence” in a jury trial, with “having an opinion.” I suspect Steyn, like many of us, and as an opinion writer with a background based more in the humanities than in science, had been reading about the climate debate for more than a decade and had come to his own conclusions and expressed them–which is, after all, his job.
His job now is to mount a legal defense, which is an entirely different thing. Give the complaint, he shouldn’t have any problem, as long as he has good counsel backing him. That would require a lawyer (or lawyers) with three areas of expertise: free speech rights, defamation law and cases involving scientific disputes.
It appears that if you had your way, everyone would need voluminous legal and scientific research to back them up every time they opened their mouths or put pen to paper. In other words, you are aiding and abetting Mann in assault on freedom of expression. If Mann’s science is actually settled, why are more and more people coming to doubt it? And should those who have come to doubt it keep their mouths shut simply because they may not understand all the underlying science? Is it your contention that only scientists should be allowed to debate the results and implications of scientific research?
Skepticism, however bitterly or saltily expressed, should not incite an assault on the legal right we all have to express an opinion based on the information we currently have. Skepticism is the very foundation of science, and that is why this lawsuit is not only an attack on individual rights, it’s an attack on science.
richardscourtney says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:15 am
Phil.:
In your post at February 5, 2014 at 7:03 am you assert about “Mike’s Nature trick”
Which has nothing to do with Michael Mann so why bring it up?
Really, “Mike’s Nature trick” “has nothing to do with Michael Mann”?
Which “Mike” was it then?
Read it again Richard, I asserted nothing about “Mike’s Nature trick”, I responded to a post about “hide the decline” and the video, which refers to something that Phil Jones did with Briffa’s data.
Phil.
Read it again Richard, I asserted nothing about “Mike’s Nature trick”, I responded to a post about “hide the decline” and the video, which refers to something that Phil Jones did with Briffa’s data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How stupid do you think we are?
The video indeed refers to something that Phil Jones did with Briffa’s data which was to “hide the decline” using “Mike’s Nature trick”
So answer the question Phil. Which Mike was Phil Jones referring to if not Mann?
davidmhoffer says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:22 am
Phil.
Read it again Richard, I asserted nothing about “Mike’s Nature trick”, I responded to a post about “hide the decline” and the video, which refers to something that Phil Jones did with Briffa’s data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How stupid do you think we are?
The video indeed refers to something that Phil Jones did with Briffa’s data which was to “hide the decline” using “Mike’s Nature trick”
So answer the question Phil. Which Mike was Phil Jones referring too if not Mann?
The so called “Mike’s Nature trick” was to plot his reconstruction data on the same graph with current instrumental data with both clearly indicated on the graph legend. This has nothing to do with “hide the decline”! What Muller was referring to in his presentation was the deletion of the data from Briffa’s tree ring plot after 1960, nothing to do with Mann.
Potter Eaton says
“It appears that if you had your way, everyone would need voluminous legal and scientific research to back them up every time they opened their mouths or put pen to paper.”
No, but I would expect them to have proof that their words were not just a groundless attack on someone prior to making their assertions.
“And should those who have come to doubt it keep their mouths shut simply because they may not understand all the underlying science?”
It is usual if one makes a statement to actually know that one is not talking rubbish.
“Skepticism, however bitterly or saltily expressed, should not incite an assault on the legal right we all have to express an opinion based on the information we currently have.”
If the facts are on your side, why would you have to resort to insults when expressing them? But if you are found to have overstepped the “evidence you currently have” you should be honest enough to retract/amend your statement and apologise if necessary.
Pride, bravado and a a cheering throng are not a sound basis on which to attack someone personally and then appeal to free-speech as justification. One should ensure that one’s speech is soundly based before freely making it, or not be surprised when laws that have been on the books for years are used to seek redress.
harebell:
At February 5, 2014 at 10:12 am you ask
Please clarify your question.
Are you suggesting it is possible to “insult” the execrable Michael Mann?
Please remember that this little Mann with large ego insulted me in one of the climategate emails because he had no answer to the incontrovertible facts I had presented and somebody copied to him.
And where is the insult to Michael Man in anything Steyn wrote about him?
Richard
harebell says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:12 am:
” … It is usual if one makes a statement to actually know that one is not talking rubbish. …”
—-l
Do you think he was talking rubbish?
Harebell: “No, but I would expect them to have proof that their words were not just a groundless attack on someone prior to making their assertions.”
I’m sure he will have proof. Volumes of proof. The problem is he shouldn’t have to be coerced into providing it. What Steyn wrote is relatively mild compared half of what you read people saying about eachother. What Mann is doing is a criminal misuse of the court system and an assault on freedom of expression against someone whose job it is to write opinions.
“It is usual if one makes a statement to actually know that one is not talking rubbish.” Based on what I’ve seen, Steyn always knows what he’s talking about. What do you take issue with? The false assertion that he accused Mann of “academic fraud?” LOL. If you and Mann think he’s going to win on that, you are both delusional. Read what Steyn says.
“But if you are found to have overstepped the “evidence you currently have” you should be honest enough to retract/amend your statement and apologise if necessary.” Again you are defending the misuse of the court system to suppress dissent and unflattering statements. The evidence is abundant that the hockey stick has been flagrantly oversold. It will take you a month to read ClimateAudit, and virtually everything he writes is proof of the fact that theory of global warming as illustrated by the hockey stick, has been oversold If everyone who was insulted in the press had the right to sue everyone to shut them up, we would no longer have a free society. Steyn sees no reason to apologize. Mann will now have to defend his science in court as unassailable. He is going to lose hugely and he is going to have to pay Steyn’s court costs.
“One should ensure that one’s speech is soundly based before freely making it, or not be surprised when laws that have been on the books for years are used to seek redress.”
One should ensure that one’s science is soundly based also before engaging in fraudulent lawsuits that will expose it for what it is. A lot of laws on the books are misused frequently to settle personal scores and harass opponents. This is an example of that. Mann has always been too cowardly to directly confront his critics, and particularly those who understand his work for what it is. Steve McIntyre, for example. Has Mann ever responded to his valid criticisms? He can’t even post on Mann’s website without being censored, which is essentially what Mann is about: censorship and suppression of dissent. And you are an apologist for him.
Different thread bombers every day… Must be an important topic. When circular irrational reasoning resembles fractal spirals, it’s time to call their bluffs and ignore them.
It is obvious that you never bothered to read Steyn’s actual request. Where’d you get your idea from? The children at sks or the ones at 350.borg.
You also need to read libel law.
Steyn is not flailing nor any sort of frantic cagw desperation can make it so. Manniacal’s only hope to prevent losing his libel suits is to drag them out forever if possible and hope that the defendants tire and quit. All it takes is one defendant willing to go the road and not only will Manniacal be through, but he’ll be on the hook for years of costs he inflicted.
Proof before assertions? Heh!? It’s good that I wasn’t drinking coffee when I read that line. Doesn’t your tongue get all twisted when it twists words like that? Or do you also believe that Manniacal should’ve had proof before assertions and been willing to share his proofs with the world.
Insults? You have the nerve to call Steyn’s excellent satire insults? When the Manniacal one himself lays into everyone who dares question his unfounded assertions?
Oh! I get it, you’re twisting words again. Spin child spin and then spin again.
A personal attack? Can you quote the actual ‘personal attack’? I didn’t think so. In fact your logic is so twisted at this point that I begin to suspect the bald bearded hockety pucker is the one stirring this pot. A manniacal so filled with ego and hate for real scientists that he feels it necessary to blast all when science asks questions and demands proof.
Incredible claims require incredible proofs, yet even weak proofs are not freely available. It is not required for science to prove manniacal wrong, it is required science that mannaical prove himself right against all questions!
Phil.
The so called “Mike’s Nature trick” was to….
>>>>>>>>>
Dodge! Weave! Anything but answer the question. Change the subject all you want, that you are twisting and turning to avoid answering the question is obvious to everyone. Your deliberate evasion says much about you.
harebell: Pride, bravado and a a cheering throng are not a sound basis on which to attack someone personally and then appeal to free-speech as justification.
How do you feel about Mann telling a New York Times reporter that Steve McIntyre is a fraud?
ATheoK says:
“Can you quote the actual ‘personal attack’?”
Yes, I would like to see that, too.
davidmhoffer says:
February 5, 2014 at 11:14 am
Phil.
The so called “Mike’s Nature trick” was to….
>>>>>>>>>
Dodge! Weave! Anything but answer the question. Change the subject all you want, that you are twisting and turning to avoid answering the question is obvious to everyone. Your deliberate evasion says much about you.
No evasion, I answered the question, apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about!
Suggesting that Steyn use the Muller video and its criticism of the Jones/Briffa “hide the decline” as evidence against Mann would be laughed out of court since he had nothing to do with it. Perhaps you should tell us what you believe the connection is, you appear to be the one evading or perhaps you’re just confused?
Phil.
No evasion, I answered the question, apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently I missed it my apologies. Could you restate the answer? If not Mann then Mike who?
Phil.:
At February 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm you assert to davidmhoffer
NO! That is two blatant falsehoods in one sentence!
davidmhoffer clearly DOES know what he is talking about and it is the question I asked at February 5, 2014 at 7:15 am which you have NOT answered and still is
Enough if your prevarication!
You claimed “Mike’s Nature trick” “has nothing to do with Michael Mann” so which “Mike” are you claiming did?
Richard
davidmhoffer says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:24 pm
Phil.
No evasion, I answered the question, apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Apparently I missed it my apologies. Could you restate the answer? If not Mann then Mike who?
Perhaps you should explain what Michael Mann has to do with ‘Hide the decline’, which was what I was referring to. You brought up Mann in that connection with no justification, perhaps you could explain why?
richardscourtney says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Phil.:
At February 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm you assert to davidmhoffer
No evasion, I answered the question, apparently you don’t know what you’re talking about!
NO! That is two blatant falsehoods in one sentence!
davidmhoffer clearly DOES know what he is talking about and it is the question I asked at February 5, 2014 at 7:15 am which you have NOT answered and still is
Which has nothing to do with Michael Mann so why bring it up?
Really, “Mike’s Nature trick” “has nothing to do with Michael Mann”?
Which “Mike” was it then?
Enough if your prevarication!
You claimed “Mike’s Nature trick” “has nothing to do with Michael Mann” so which “Mike” are you claiming did?
No I said that Michael Mann had nothing to do with ‘Hide the decline’, davidmhoffer brought up “Mike’s Nature trick” which is a complete red herring.
Phil.
You brought up Mann in that connection with no justification, perhaps you could explain why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You already used that excuse.
Phil.,
Say hi to your pal Kyle. He needs all the support he can get on the Josh cartoon article!☺
Phil.:
In your post at February 5, 2014 at 12:34 pm you quote me then say
NO! That is yet two more falsehoods from you!
YOU raised the issue and I quoted you having done it. You quoted those YOUR WORDS in your post I am answering.
I raised the question of who you were claiming did “Mike’s Nature trick” (n.b. NOT davidmhoffer) and you quoted my having done it in the post I am answering.
So, either answer the question or admit you were wrong and Michael Mann is the Mike of “Mike’s Nature trick”.
Richard
jeremyp99 says:
February 5, 2014 at 3:32 am
That short video is pretty damning for Mann, IMHO.
Clever argument, but it is rather mincing words to claim that the creator of a fraudulent work is not a fraud himself.
I haven’t been following this intensely, but my recollection was that Mann (and Penn State) were most aggrieved by the comparison with the Sandusky scandal, and Penn’s whitewash of that. The issue of scientific fraud is rather secondary. Though neither rises to the level of libel or defamation in my view, especially of a public figure.
I agree with others that Mark Steyn should have good legal counsel. Surely amongst the readers of WUWT there is a trial attorney of standing who would be willing to donate his services to the cause of free speech and good science. Where’s our Clarence Darrow?
/Mr Lynn
Phil.: The so called “Mike’s Nature trick” was to plot his reconstruction data on the same graph with current instrumental data with both clearly indicated on the graph legend.
Yes, because plotting two sets of data on the same graph is such a clever idea it deserves being referred to as a “trick.”
richardscourtney says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:59 pm
Phil.:
In your post at February 5, 2014 at 12:34 pm you quote me then say
No I said that Michael Mann had nothing to do with ‘Hide the decline’, davidmhoffer brought up “Mike’s Nature trick” which is a complete red herring.
NO! That is yet two more falsehoods from you!
YOU raised the issue and I quoted you having done it. You quoted those YOUR WORDS in your post I am answering.
As shown below I did not raise the subject of “Mike’s Nature trick”, you did.
I raised the question of who you were claiming did “Mike’s Nature trick” (n.b. NOT davidmhoffer) and you quoted my having done it in the post I am answering.
Yes you originally raised the subject of “Mike’s Nature trick” and hoffer followed it up, my original post which I repeat below said nothing about “Mike’s Nature trick”, hence my reply.
Phil. says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:03 am
kramer says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm
Seems to me that Steyn has *some* resources. For example, Muller’s video where he slams “hide the decline”,
Bart says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:12 am
kramer says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:57 pm
“For example, Muller’s video where he slams “hide the decline”…”
Link to the video. Pretty damning stuff. Go to 33:35 for the good bit.
Which has nothing to do with Michael Mann so why bring it up?
So I repeat what Muller criticizes in the video is not due to Mann, if you think it is please explain how.
Phil.:
In your post at February 5, 2014 at 1:51 pm you ask me
Say what!?
Having failed to avoid answering the question in every other way, you now pretend to be an idiot!
OK. Back to square 1.
At February 5, 2014 at 7:15 am I quoted you and asked
I suggest that you now either answer the question or admit you were wrong and Michael Mann is the Mike of “Mike’s Nature trick”.
And I point out that your prevarication about this is making you a laughing stock.
Richard
Phil. says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:51 pm
“So I repeat what Muller criticizes in the video is not due to Mann, if you think it is please explain how.”
I’d like to take a shot at this one. Steyn’s original one-liner that got him into so much trouble is, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.” Notice Steyn never said which hockey-stick was fraudulent, just that somewhere out there in the world is a fraudulent hockey-stick and Mann was behind it. As Muller pointed out, Briffa hid the decline of his proxy series by dipping into Mann’s bag of tricks. Did Mann know that Briffa was using his trick? He should have since the offending email was also addressed to him. So, that opens up a nice line of discovery for Mr Steyn: Dr Mann please provide us with all emails in your possession where you tell Dr Briffa in no uncertain terms to keep his stinking decline away from your tricks. If Dr Mann fails to do that, then he is at a minimum involved in the creation of a fraudulent hockey-stick – working behind the scenes as it were to pull yet another fast one on the rube politicians who can hardly be expected to read legends when they don’t even read the bills. It’s his trick and he didn’t try to stop Briffa and Jones from using it in a really disingenuous fashion. I’ll bet he’s also one of the co-authors of that particular stick. What do you think? Would that stick?
My question is where is Michael Mann getting the money to pay for this most expensive lawyer?
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: NEED HELP!
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 07:21:55 -0400
Hi Keith,
Thanks–yes, we seem to back in the days of McCarthyism in the States. Fortunately, we have
some good people who will represent us legally pro bono, and in the best case scenario,
this backfires on these thugs…
The response of the wording is likely to change dramatically after consulation w/ lawyers,
etc. but any feedback on the substance would nonetheless be very helpful…
thanks for both your help and your support,
mike
Poor little Mikey. Can’t catch a break. Always sitting on the courthouse steps waiting for his pro bono attorney to begin yet another gov’t assault on liberty. Is it possible John B. Williams, Joe Camel apologist, is feeling guilty for past discretions? Is he Michael Mann’s sugar daddy mentioned in the above email? Could he possibly be stupid enough to choose defending pure evil twice in one lifetime? Mark Steyn’s attorney should ask little Mikey that on cross. Not for any particular reason. Just cuz we’re all curious.
ferdberple says:
For more on one famous example of this, see this book by Malcolm Gladwell:
http://www.amazon.com/David-Goliath-Underdogs-Misfits-Battling/dp/0316204366/
Mann vs Steyn is certainly a David vs Goliath case, but as Gladwell takes pains to show, some advantages are disadvantages and vice versa.
Steyn needs to discover exactly how the hockey stick was produced. Mann has kept important details secret. If those details are as bad as we expect, this case will never proceed beyond discovery.
Since Mann is by all reports a born liar, I would hope that some of Mann’s academic qualifications were examined too.
Details aside, it’s pretty f*cking hilarious watching Phil dot’s progression over the last five years, since I found this site.
He used to argue spectroscopy (and I believe that spectroscopy is his profession).
He wouldn’t listen to me when I told him that conclusion-based conclusion-drawing was the mark of a sh!t scientist, while he blithely continued with it.
…. and now, after a few crap conclusion-based conclusion-drawing arguments on Arctic ice, here we have him standing up for some English language-based argument to support the science of anthropogenic carbon dioxide BS.
Time to give up Phil, although I know you won’t.
Richard, if you know where he lives, I’ll pay for the mirror and the petrol for the delivery ….
(Interesting fact: Commenter “Kyle” posts from the same computer as “Phil.” does, in the Josh cartoon article. ~ mod.)
Perhaps I can trigger my own lawsuit from Michael: Science is not rhetoric. Mike is not a scientist. He long since abandoned science in favor of rhetoric. He does not compare his predictions with the experimental results. He holds up pictures of hurricanes. He plays to the normal human interest and fear of weather. His rhetoric places him well beyond any protection. To him it is crystal clear that the weather has gone crazy, but what he is actually seeing is the inside of his own propensity to hunt witches.
Am I mistaken or did not Mann in one of his infamous emails suggest that perhaps he and his fellow fraudsters should coordinate an effort to oust a journal editor who did not go along with the AGW hysteria? Would such a contrived personal attack not necessarily be based on contrived (which is to say fraudulent) “evidence” against a fellow scientist as a basis to have him dismissed? The utterance conveys motive, even if it was not carried forward to action.
The problem with fraud, of course, is that it’s often obvious when exposed, but may be difficult to prove in court without a clear showing of motive to defraud. On the other hand, defamation of character of a well known person whose name appears repeatedly in the press can also be difficult to prove unlesss — likewise — there is a clearly established motive to defame. That will be Mann’s difficult chore. And rather a great risk to his already diminishing cred, perhaps.
Even if Mann prevails, but with only a symbolic jury award of one dollar, it will be a Pyrrhic victory for him to be damned by such faint praise. Props to Steyn for refusing to recant.
ttfn says:
February 5, 2014 at 2:58 pm
Phil. says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:51 pm
“So I repeat what Muller criticizes in the video is not due to Mann, if you think it is please explain how.”
I’d like to take a shot at this one. Steyn’s original one-liner that got him into so much trouble is, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.” Notice Steyn never said which hockey-stick was fraudulent, just that somewhere out there in the world is a fraudulent hockey-stick and Mann was behind it. As Muller pointed out, Briffa hid the decline of his proxy series by dipping into Mann’s bag of tricks.
Which is not true, Briffa ‘hid the decline’ of his proxy series by truncating it after 1960 to remove what he termed the ‘divergence problem’, this had nothing to do with Mann.
Mann’s ‘trick’ was to plot his reconstruction and the instrument data on the same graph, clearly indicated as different, one red the other black as I recall.
Phil Jones added instrumental data to his truncated data set also, that explains the reference to ‘Mike’s trick’.
When it comes to ‘hiding’ though, the divergence problem and the reason for it was discussed in the paper (et seq) which doesn’t suggest that there was any secrecy. Of course you’re free to discuss the science regarding their decision to truncate the series but not to argue that it was unethically ‘hidden’ from the readers since it was the subject of numerous papers. Mann wasn’t involved with the paper in any case.
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
The divergence problem is reviewed in:
http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf
Did Mann know that Briffa was using his trick? He should have since the offending email was also addressed to him. So, that opens up a nice line of discovery for Mr Steyn: Dr Mann please provide us with all emails in your possession where you tell Dr Briffa in no uncertain terms to keep his stinking decline away from your tricks. If Dr Mann fails to do that, then he is at a minimum involved in the creation of a fraudulent hockey-stick – working behind the scenes as it were to pull yet another fast one on the rube politicians who can hardly be expected to read legends when they don’t even read the bills. It’s his trick and he didn’t try to stop Briffa and Jones from using it in a really disingenuous fashion. I’ll bet he’s also one of the co-authors of that particular stick. What do you think? Would that stick?
You’d lose your bet!
philincalifornia says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
(Interesting fact: Commenter “Kyle” posts from the same computer as “Phil.” does, in the Josh cartoon article. ~ mod.)
MOD. If this is really from a mod please recheck your data, I am the only one who posts from my computer and I only use one name, Phil. I have no idea who ‘Kyle’ is.
So I would like this incorrect statement removed and an apology for your error would be appreciated.
[Same computer URL was used for posting. ~ mod.]
Phil.
Mann’s ‘trick’ was to plot his reconstruction and the instrument data on the same graph, clearly indicated as different, one red the other black as I recall.
Phil Jones added instrumental data to his truncated data set also, that explains the reference to ‘Mike’s trick’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So Phil Jones hid the decline using Mike’s trick and the Mike in question was Mann. Thanks for the clarification.
davidmhoffer says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:11 am
Phil.
Mann’s ‘trick’ was to plot his reconstruction and the instrument data on the same graph, clearly indicated as different, one red the other black as I recall.
Phil Jones added instrumental data to his truncated data set also, that explains the reference to ‘Mike’s trick’.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So Phil Jones hid the decline using Mike’s trick and the Mike in question was Mann. Thanks for the clarification.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point!
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 6:51 am
So when Mann writes:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
“I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the plot, and can ask
Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
liked my own color/plotting conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself).
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.”
he’s talking about some other hockey stick? Maybe this was one of those independent sticks that verified Mann’s work?
Phil.
I,too, write to offer my thanks for you at last having admitted that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
And the clear effect – and probable intent – of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was to mislead by stitching two selected pieces of two different items of information together. I objected to this within a week of his publishing MBH 1998 and somebody sent a copy of my objection to him. Some years later I learned on WUWT that he responded by writing a circular email which was leaked as part of climategate. His email gave no rebuttal of my objection but consisted of a series of personal insults about me. Had I known that Michael Mann would behave like that then I would have been much stronger in my objection.
Michael Mann was not the first to stitch two selected pieces of two different items of information together as a method to provide a misleading scientific indication. The Piltdown Man consisted of exactly the same “Trick” and is the most famous scientific fr@ud in history.
Richard
Steyn suggested that Mann had “molested and tortured data.” Does anybody think that is even actually possible? Waterboarding?
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:28 am
Phil.
I,too, write to offer my thanks for you at last having admitted that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
I never denied it, you for some reason chose to equate ‘Hide the decline’ which I was talking about with “Mike’s Nature Trick”.
And the clear effect – and probable intent – of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was to mislead by stitching two selected pieces of two different items of information together. I objected to this within a week of his publishing MBH 1998 and somebody sent a copy of my objection to him.
While you may have indeed objected, your characterization is inaccurate the data were plotted on the same graph and clearly indicated as such, they were not ‘stitched together’
Some years later I learned on WUWT that he responded by writing a circular email which was leaked as part of climategate. His email gave no rebuttal of my objection but consisted of a series of personal insults about me. Had I known that Michael Mann would behave like that then I would have been much stronger in my objection.
Michael Mann was not the first to stitch two selected pieces of two different items of information together as a method to provide a misleading scientific indication. The Piltdown Man consisted of exactly the same “Trick” and is the most famous scientific fr@ud in history.
Your analogy would be appropriate if the lower jawbone of the orangutan and the skull of the modern human were colored distinctly and clearly and accurately labelled! We both know that wasn’t the case!
ttfn says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:24 am
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 6:51 am
So when Mann writes:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999
“I am perfectly amenable to keeping Keith’s series in the plot, and can ask
Ian Macadam (Chris?) to add it to the plot he has been preparing (nobody
liked my own color/plotting conventions so I’ve given up doing this myself).
The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable
way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s,
we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean
values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.”
he’s talking about some other hockey stick? Maybe this was one of those independent sticks that verified Mann’s work?
No, he’s talking about putting together a composite graph containing a set of available reconstructions for the IPCC report. There was a debate about which reconstructions to include, whether to separate tree-only from multi-proxy etc.
I think it was this one:
Figure 2.21: Comparison of warm-season (Jones et al., 1998) and annual mean (Mann et al., 1998, 1999) multi-proxy-based and warm season tree-ring-based (Briffa, 2000) millennial Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions. The recent instrumental annual mean Northern Hemisphere temperature record to 1999 is shown for comparison.
Phil.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest that there are two possibilities:
1. You believe that I am so stupid that I might believe you when you claim to not have said something you just said; or
2. I am so stupid that I believe you when you claim to not have said something you just said.
I might observe that “said” is not the correct term here as the entire exchange is in writing, documented for all to peruse at their leisure and draw their own conclusions. I suppose too that there may also be a third option:
3. You are so stupid that you believe yourself when you claim to not have said something you just said.
I shall not insult you by voting for the third option. If anyone else wants to vote, they are free to do so, but I would urge them to choose between one of the first two. My vote is for 1.
Thanks for clearing that up, Phil. I’m sure a lot of those climategate emails will be put into the proper context by Dr Mann when he’s on the stand and look forward to reading the transcript.
davidmhoffer says:
February 6, 2014 at 8:55 am
Phil.
Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong point!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suggest that there are two possibilities:
1. You believe that I am so stupid that I might believe you when you claim to not have said something you just said; or
Or what actually happened, that whenever I refer to ‘Hide the decline’ you read it as ‘Mike’s trick’ and then claim I said something that I did not! Those two terms do not refer to the same thing and you are in error when you treat them as such. Despite my clearly explaining the distinction to you, you appear to be unable to understand it.
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 9:36 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You give me no choice but to change my vote to 3.
Phil.:
I am replying to your laughable post addressed to me at February 6, 2014 at 8:25 am.
Firstly, I wrote
and you have replied
SAY WHAT??!!!
Much of this thread has been your refusal to answer my question and my pressing it!
Then you lie
They were plotted over one another such that the ‘treemometry’ after 1966 was obscured by the ‘thermometer’ data. Indeed, it was this method which was used to “hide the decline”; n.b. it was hidden behind the ‘thermometer’ data.
Importantly, having hidden the decline in the graph, MBH did not discuss the decline in their text. They mentioned it in another paper in a more obscure journal so if ‘called’ on it they could claim they had reported the matter although it was somewhere else.
The MBH ‘hockey stick is precisely the same type of fr@ud as Piltdown Man.
The only difference between these scientific fr@uds is that
(a) we know Mann, Bradley and Hughes constructed their ‘hockey stick’ by combining two different parts of two different pieces of information,
but
(b) to this day it is not certain who constructed the Piltdown man skull by combining two different parts of two different skulls.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 9:56 am
Phil.:
I am replying to your laughable post addressed to me at February 6, 2014 at 8:25 am.
Firstly, I wrote
I,too, write to offer my thanks for you at last having admitted that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
and you have replied
I never denied it, you for some reason chose to equate ‘Hide the decline’ which I was talking about with “Mike’s Nature Trick”.
SAY WHAT??!!!
Much of this thread has been your refusal to answer my question and my pressing it!
You brought up “Mike’s Nature Trick” not I. I was discussing ‘Hide the decline’ which as I pointed out was something that Jones and Briffa did, not Mann. Please quote my statement that denied that the “Mike” of “Mike’s Nature Trick” was Michael Mann.
Then you lie
“While you may have indeed objected, your characterization is inaccurate the data were plotted on the same graph and clearly indicated as such, they were not ‘stitched together’”
They were plotted over one another such that the ‘treemometry’ after 1966 was obscured by the ‘thermometer’ data. Indeed, it was this method which was used to “hide the decline”; n.b. it was hidden behind the ‘thermometer’ data.
Importantly, having hidden the decline in the graph, MBH did not discuss the decline in their text. They mentioned it in another paper in a more obscure journal so if ‘called’ on it they could claim they had reported the matter although it was somewhere else.
There’s a very good reason for that, there was no decline to discuss, the ‘hide the decline’ refers to a later paper by Jones and Briffa, where they removed the results post-1960 which showed a decline. They discussed it in their paper and subsequent papers and other authors such as D’Arrigo also published about it (see Phil. says: February 6, 2014 at 6:51 am). You appear to be confusing the two papers Richard. Where do you get the 1966 date from, Mann shows a reconstruction to 1980 and starts the thermometer data in 1902?
The MBH ‘hockey stick is precisely the same type of fr@ud as Piltdown Man.
The only difference between these scientific fr@uds is that
(a) we know Mann, Bradley and Hughes constructed their ‘hockey stick’ by combining two different parts of two different pieces of information,
No we know that they plotted two different sets of data on the same graph because they told us so in the paper and indicated the two sets on the graph!
but
(b) to this day it is not certain who constructed the Piltdown man skull by combining two different parts of two different skulls.
Indeed because unlike Mann they didn’t tell us that they had done so nor marked the two parts distinctly.
Phil.:
You are incorrigible.
I write to state that I read your post at February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am and I have not ignored it.
I am content to allow others to read it and themselves to
laugh atassess it.Richard
I guess the truth hurts Richard? Your confusion about the different papers will be apparent to all (except hoffer who appears to be beyond hope).
Phil.:
At February 6, 2014 at 1:06 pm you ask me
No, I am not hurt. You have told a long series of lies in this thread as everybody who reads the thread can see. Indeed, I have stated several of these lies in the thread.
The truth is that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm
Phil.:
At February 6, 2014 at 1:06 pm you ask me
I guess the truth hurts Richard?
No, I am not hurt. You have told a long series of lies in this thread as everybody who reads the thread can see. Indeed, I have stated several of these lies in the thread.
I have told no lies in this thread, you are confusing two different papers!
The truth is that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
Now that is a lie!
Phil.:
I see that at February 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm you have again reverted to Square 1.
I wrote the factual statement
You have replied
Really? A lie? How so
If – as you claim – Michael Mann did not invent “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” (the invention and use of which is scientific fr@ud) then who was the “Mike” who did invent and use it?
Richard
Hi Mark Steyn,
A few weeks ago, I read your piece about the ‘ship of fools’ incident. I especially liked the part about Mawson’s footprint. I hope that you’re as brilliant at legal strategy as you are at political satire.
I’m a compleat idiot about the fantasy world that lawyers have created, and insist on living in. If I were in your shoes, I’d look for a competent lawyer to make the best possible case in court. Even if my attorney I was out-gunned by Mikey’s lawyers.
Sometimes common sense intersects with the law, and sometimes it does not. Best wishes.
richardscourtney says:
February 6, 2014 at 3:42 pm
Phil.:
I see that at February 6, 2014 at 3:02 pm you have again reverted to Square 1.
I wrote the
factualstatementThe truth is that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
You have replied
Now that is a lie!
Really? A lie? How so
If – as you claim – Michael Mann did not invent “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline”
Michael Mann did not do this, he plotted his reconstruction along with thermometric data to show the continuation beyond the end of the multi proxy series. Just like Craig Loehle did in his reconstruction on Climate Audit. ‘Hide the decline’ refers to something that Jones and Briffa did in a later paper, which included adding thermometric data to replace the data post-1960 that they had removed because it ceased to correlate with temperature (‘the divergence problem’, ‘the decline’).
(the invention and use of which is scientific fr@ud) then who was the “Mike” who did invent and use it?
Plotting data from different sources on the same graph and indicating that you’ve done so is hardly ‘an invention’. The problem is with your attribution of motive, you think that Mann did it in his MBH98 paper where there was no decline, so that it would be available for Jones and Briffa to use in a later paper where they truncated their reconstruction to ‘hide the decline’.
Phil.:
re your post at February 7, 2014 at 3:10 am.
It seems that you are not content with merely going back to where you started, you want to go through your entire saga of obfuscation and falsehood with which you have polluted this thread.
I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.
Reality is not altered by you choosing to delude your self about it and/or you proclaiming false hoods. And the reality is clear; viz.
Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
Richard
“In my opinion, locating the earliest known example of “hide the decline’ in Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys) places hide the decline in a remarkable new light. I think that it’s fair to say that most of us have assumed that “hide the decline” originated with Mann or Briffa. However, it seems to me that this new evidence suggests that the lead author of Jones et al 1999, Phil Jones himself, may have been responsible for CRU’s decision to hide the decline in the spaghetti graph comparisons – initially Jones et al 1999 Figure 6, later, as we all know, IPCC TAR Fig 2.20.”
From http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/15/new-light-on-hide-the-decline/
Phil. (February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am) “…There’s a very good reason for that, there was no decline to discuss, the ‘hide the decline’ refers to a later paper by Jones and Briffa, where they removed the results post-1960 which showed a decline. They discussed it in their paper….”
They did not discuss it in this paper: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf in section 5.6 (May 1999), the one that McIntyre is referring to in the post I linked above, It is a rather short summary, so perhaps there was not enough space to discuss the truncation of the data. It is also notable that Jones et al are fixated on the warmth of 1998 which is verboten for skeptics now that 1998’s has not been equaled for 16 years.
eric1skeptic says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:33 am
Phil. (February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am) “…There’s a very good reason for that, there was no decline to discuss, the ‘hide the decline’ refers to a later paper by Jones and Briffa, where they removed the results post-1960 which showed a decline. They discussed it in their paper….”
They did not discuss it in this paper: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jones-etal-1999.pdf in section 5.6 (May 1999), the one that McIntyre is referring to in the post I linked above, It is a rather short summary, so perhaps there was not enough space to discuss the truncation of the data.
That paper is not about tree chronology and only refers to temperature measurements so there is no decline or divergence to discuss.
Try this one: http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
Title: Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
They say in their abstract:
“However, a dramatic change in the sensitivity of hemispheric tree-growth to temperature forcing has become apparent during recent decades, and there is additional evidence of major tree-growth (and hence, probably, ecosystem biomass) increases in the northern boreal forests, most clearly over the last century. These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of tree growth have important implications for modelling future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also, where dendroclimatology is concerned to reconstruct longer (increasingly above centennial) temperature histories, such alterations of `normal’ (pre-industrial) tree-growth rates and climate^growth relationships must be accounted for in our attempts to translate the evidence of past tree growth changes.”
eric1skeptic says:
February 7, 2014 at 5:03 am
“In my opinion, locating the earliest known example of “hide the decline’ in Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys) places hide the decline in a remarkable new light. I think that it’s fair to say that most of us have assumed that “hide the decline” originated with Mann or Briffa. However, it seems to me that this new evidence suggests that the lead author of Jones et al 1999, Phil Jones himself, may have been responsible for CRU’s decision to hide the decline in the spaghetti graph comparisons – initially Jones et al 1999 Figure 6, later, as we all know, IPCC TAR Fig 2.20.”
There’s no doubt that Jones originated it, Briffa had already encountered the ‘divergence problem’ and felt he had an explanation, some on the IPCC committee weren’t happy with including the tree data which had that problem. As indicated in the ‘Climategate’ emails Phil Jones came up with the idea of ‘hiding the decline’ by truncating the data after 1960 and using thermometer data to fill up the gap. Craig Loehle did the same as Mike Mann had done previously, with his non-tree proxy study on Climate Audit, his data ended in 1935 and in order to link his data with current temperatures he added the thermometer data.
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 3:20 am
Phil.:
re your post at February 7, 2014 at 3:10 am.
It seems that you are not content with merely going back to where you started, you want to go through your entire saga of obfuscation and falsehood with which you have polluted this thread.
I cannot be bothered to go through it all again.
Reality is not altered by you choosing to delude your self about it and/or you proclaiming false hoods. And the reality is clear; viz.
Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fraud.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see” Richard, it is you who are deluding yourself and proclaiming falsehoods. Look at the literature and ‘Climategate’, the chronology is clear, it is you who is trying to rewrite history.
Phil.: Plotting data from different sources on the same graph and indicating that you’ve done so is hardly ‘an invention’.
It’s hardly a trick, either. If that’s all he was talking about, he wouldn’t have called it “Mike’s trick,” because there’s nothing the least bit clever, unusual, or tricky about it.
Somehow in my previous comment, I omitted “Nature” from “Mike’s Nature trick.”
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:03 am
philincalifornia says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
(Interesting fact: Commenter “Kyle” posts from the same computer as “Phil.” does, in the Josh cartoon article. ~ mod.)
MOD. If this is really from a mod please recheck your data, I am the only one who posts from my computer and I only use one name, Phil. I have no idea who ‘Kyle’ is.
So I would like this incorrect statement removed and an apology for your error would be appreciated.
[Same computer URL was used for posting. ~ mod.]
Really, that’s interesting since those posts weren’t made on my computer. I guess it’s not a unique identifier?
[Reply: Maybe not. WP lists both as: 173.61.148.42 ~ mod.]
Phil.
OK. I have waited and read all your posts.
You have reverted to refuting the clear truth that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fr@ud.
For your refutation to have any credibility you need to specifically state whom you think to be the “Mike” who did invent “Mike’s Nature trick”. And if you want to persist in talking about Briffa then please provide some evidence that he has changed his name to “Mike”.
Also, I am not “blind” to the ridiculous nature of your assertions.
Richard
Phil. says:
February 7, 2014 at 1:54 pm
Phil. says:
February 6, 2014 at 7:03 am
philincalifornia says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
(Interesting fact: Commenter “Kyle” posts from the same computer as “Phil.” does, in the Josh cartoon article. ~ mod.)
MOD. If this is really from a mod please recheck your data, I am the only one who posts from my computer and I only use one name, Phil. I have no idea who ‘Kyle’ is.
So I would like this incorrect statement removed and an apology for your error would be appreciated.
[Same computer URL was used for posting. ~ mod.]
Really, that’s interesting since those posts weren’t made on my computer. I guess it’s not a unique identifier?
[Reply: Maybe not. WP lists both as: 173.61.148.42 ~ mod.]
Interesting, that doesn’t bear any resemblance to any number at this end?
richardscourtney says:
February 7, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Phil.
OK. I have waited and read all your posts.
You have reverted to refuting the
clear truthassertion that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature Trick” to “hide the decline” and the invention and its use is scientific fraud.Correct, that ‘truth’ is a fabrication by you.
For your refutation to have any credibility you need to specifically state whom you think to be the “Mike” who did invent “Mike’s Nature trick”.
I have done so here multiple times.
And if you want to persist in talking about Briffa then please provide some evidence that he has changed his name to “Mike”.
Briffa and Jones were the ones who instituted ‘hide the decline’ as I have documented here multiple times.
Also, I am not “blind” to the ridiculous nature of your assertions.
You are blind to the facts at issue, were Steyn to raise this issue in court the way you have it would be demolished.
MJW says:
February 7, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Phil.: Plotting data from different sources on the same graph and indicating that you’ve done so is hardly ‘an invention’.
It’s hardly a trick, either. If that’s all he was talking about, he wouldn’t have called it “Mike’s trick,” because there’s nothing the least bit clever, unusual, or tricky about it.
Agreed it’s not much of a trick, but apparently to Phil Jones who was looking for a way to deal with the issue of truncating the reconstruction post-1960 it was an inspiration.
Phil;
I dread to think about the length to which your nose has grown as a result of your posts in this thread.
I wrote
and in reply you lie
Merely tell the truth. Is that really, really so hard for you?
What is the name of this “Mike” whom you claim to have named “multiple times” but have yet to mention?
Or, if you cannot being yourself to do that, then accept the reality that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature trick” to “Hide the decline” and the invention and use of that “trick” is scientific fr@ud.
As for being laughed out of Court, one can only hope that the lawyers representing Michael Mann adopt your ploy of claiming Mann was not “Mike” because that was someone else whom they have named “multiple times” but cannot say where or when and cannot now name. The damages awarded to Steyn will surely be immense if they do.
Richard
Agreed it’s not much of a trick, but apparently to Phil Jones who was looking for a way to deal with the issue of truncating the reconstruction post-1960 it was an inspiration.
From the email, it appears like he was looking for a way to deal with the issue of hiding the decline.
richardscourtney says:
February 8, 2014 at 7:31 am
Phil;
I dread to think about the length to which your nose has grown as a result of your posts in this thread.
I wrote
For your refutation to have any credibility you need to specifically state whom you think to be the “Mike” who did invent “Mike’s Nature trick”.
and in reply you lie
I have done so here multiple times.
Merely tell the truth. Is that really, really so hard for you?
What is the name of this “Mike” whom you claim to have named “multiple times” but have yet to mention?
Yet another lie from you richard!
See: Phil. says: February 7, 2014 at 3:10 am
Phil. says: February 6, 2014 at 10:59 am
Phil. says: February 6, 2014 at 6:51 am
Or, if you cannot being yourself to do that, then accept the reality that Michael Mann invented “Mike’s Nature trick”
to “Hide the decline” and the invention and use of that “trick” is scientific fraud.No, that statement is a fabrication by you, specifically the stuck out part is an untrue invention by you.
As for being laughed out of Court, one can only hope that the lawyers representing Michael Mann adopt your ploy of claiming Mann was not “Mike” because that was someone else whom they have named “multiple times” but cannot say where or when and cannot now name. The damages awarded to Steyn will surely be immense if they do.
Answered, multiple times!
To rebut it perhaps they would subpoena Steve McIntyre:
“In my opinion, locating the earliest known example of “hide the decline’ in Jones et al 1999 (Rev Geophys) places hide the decline in a remarkable new light. I think that it’s fair to say that most of us have assumed that “hide the decline” originated with Mann or Briffa. However, it seems to me that this new evidence suggests that the lead author of Jones et al 1999, Phil Jones himself, may have been responsible for CRU’s decision to hide the decline in the spaghetti graph comparisons – initially Jones et al 1999 Figure 6, later, as we all know, IPCC TAR Fig 2.20.”
“The IPCC spaghetti graph in its First Order Draft (October 1999) adopted a hide-the-decline strategy modeled on the techniques “pioneered” in Jones et al 1999 and Briffa and Osborn 1999”
” not everything is Mann’s fault. I think it was more that CRU had their own trick to hide the decline – I was going to include a discussion of funct_decline in this post, but it is deferred for now. Mann’s trick was a little different and Jones decided to use it (or what he thought it was), rather than the CRU trick in the WMO graphic.”