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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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