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.
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.