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.
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: @ur momisugly 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.