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.
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.