Some people say you shouldn’t poke a bear with a stick, for obvious reasons.
I’ll say one thing for Mr. Steyn, he never gives up poking the ‘MannBearPig’, even when being sued. Steyn writes on his web page today:
…
Which brings us to Michael Mann, the fake Nobel laureate currently suing NATIONAL REVIEW for mocking his global-warming “hockey stick.” Of the recent congressional hearings, Dr. Mann tweeted that it was “#Science” — i.e., the guy who agrees with him — vs. “#AntiScience” — i.e., Dr. Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. That’s to say, she is by profession a scientist, but because she has the impertinence to dissent from Dr. Mann’s view she is “#AntiScience.” Mann is the climatological equivalent of those bozo imams on al-Arabiya raging about infidel whores: He can’t refute Dr. Curry, he can only label her.
He explains his aversion to appearing with anyone other than fawning groupies thus: “Getting on a debate stage signals that, while you might disagree, you respect the position of your opponent. #WhyWeDontDebateScienceDeniers.” But the reality is that he’s too insecure and dull-witted to argue. That’s why he’s suing me over a pun (“tree-ring circus”), why he threatened legal action in Minnesota over a song parody, and why he’s in court in Vancouver objecting to a bit of wordplay. “You can’t say that!” is the refrain of those who can’t hold their own. Michael Mann is seeking massive damages from me and this magazine. Nuts to that. But I would be willing to buy him a course in debating technique — because in free societies that’s how you win. I’d also like to buy the wee thin-skinned chap a sense of humor, but I don’t think there’s a course for that.
~You can help Mark defend himself against Dr Mann’s lawsuit by supporting the SteynOnline bookstore and by purchasing our new Steyn gift certificates.
=============================================================
Source: http://www.steynonline.com/6079/yes-we-can-say-that
Readers might want to read what Dr. Curry has to say about all of this in her essay:
JC challenge to MM: Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.
He has not responded to my challenge, other than to retweet some rather dubious blog posts.
See: http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/26/mann-versus-steyn/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann is involved in multiple legal actions against his critics. From this I conclude that the problem most likely lies with Mann.
One lawsuit, that doesn’t tell you much as who is at fault. But when someone is involved in multiple independent suits, the odds are that they are simply the innocent victim drops rapidly.
I would think that most juries would understand this much more than they would understand the science involved.
I agree with shining the light of day on this issue. 1 person calls Mann a fraud, that person is at risk. Do they have enough money to defend themselves in court?
The average person does not, so they can be silenced through threats of legal action. Free Speech dies. A fundamental right that has cost millions of our ancestors their lives to obtain and defend over the centuries is lost.
However, if lots of people independently call Mann a fraud, it is a different issue entirely.
Warmists Hide The Decline. Somebody make that statement into a bumper sticker please (I can’t).
All Mr. Steyn needs to prevail is a full and fair trial. The only hope Dr. Mann has is to rig the trial and suppress evidence and witnesses.
When winter cold,
We are told,
Shrinks his mannhood,
To whence he could,
He cries aloud,
In courts cloud,
To find the heat,
To cook his meat.
Butt alas,
To an ass,
His tongue burns,
His end learns.
Steyn has put out a request for ideas for the discovery portion of the trial. While he’s aware of WUWT, he’s not a regular reader; and while many of us are no doubt fans of his, the larger portion of the blog regulars may not be aware of Steyn’s battle — and win — against Canada’s “Human Rights Commission’s hate speech charges against him. Not only did he win, he got the relevant portion of the law struck down and repealed.
The man is a free speech hero, and given the recent tendency of the AGWer’s to use censorship and lawsuits against skeptics, it’s in our best interest to give him our fullest support — whether you like what he said or not.
I think “Mike’s nature trick” has been mentioned here in the comments and I would like to set the record straight.
What Michael Mann’s nature trick really is it’s the ability to reproduce without having the organ with which it is normally necessary to do so. Now, the fact of the matter stands is that he himself is just a big version of that organ while at the same time not having that organ.
Now, I realize the foregoing is an ad hominen attack, but does anybody else have an explanation for his behavior?
ferdberple says: However, if lots of people independently call Mann a fraud, it is a different issue entirely.
Would Mann then be forced into a reverse class action against the whole world?
@JoeJitsu –
Yes, and here in the Demokratic Peeple’s Republik of Kalifornia (DPRK – same initials as the state’s sister republic to the west of Japan) we have “climate action plans” which require counties to spend money on things other than where the money is needed – without offering any proof of benefits for the costs incurred.
California (or New York, either) can no more legislate climate than King Canute could legislate the schedule of the tides.
And what a tragedy it is that all those institutions named in the NewScience clip have fallen prey to the most insane superstition of all time. I’d love to see what this McNulty character has to say after we have a few more winters like this one. But actually it isn’t hard to fathom how so many academics can be so delusional. Their isolation in the ivory tower makes for quite the disconnect from reality. I saw this myself all too many times during my three years as a history prof, back in the early 70s.
On the last go round on this subject, I missed this statement by the judge:
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations.
Right there you have evidence of a prejudicial judge. Where does Steyn say that Mann conducted fraudulent research? What Steyn said was, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”
Where does he say he manipulated data? Or purposefully distorted the scientific truth? While these things will probably be proven true in a trial, I don’t see how the judge can interpret Steyn’s statement to mean all of those things, and I have a feeling that if the trial goes against Steyn that it will be reversed because of judicial error. The judge is making allegations of fact that are quite possibly not factual.
As I said before, it’s one thing to say something was conceived through fraud, and another to say it is being used fraudulently. There is evidence that Mann committed fraud, or at best manipulated data, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that Steyn is accusing him of that. There is abundant evidence that the hockey stick graph is scientifically wrong and the longer temperatures stay flat, the more persuasive the argument that it is wrong becomes. If the evidence is mounting and people are continuing to use the graph to prove the argument, then the graph is being used fraudulently, or at least that is an assertion that is open to scientific and philosophical debate.
Perhaps a better picture on the lead post should be a pig or opossum. Mann is no bear although Steyn probably has the balls to poke one.
hunter says:
February 8, 2014 at 12:49 pm
DC is probably just about the worst venue in the USA for Steyn. A jury there is liable to find against him despite all the evidence.
Chad Wozniak says:
February 8, 2014 at 1:30 pm “Their isolation in the ivory tower makes for quite the disconnect from reality.”
The track narrows in the darkened tunnels of academia. And the money train takes no pause. ” Nicholas Drapela, Professor And Climate Change Denier, Fired From Oregon State University”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/professor-nicholas-drapela-fired_n_1615947.html
Yes, probably.
And, (with apologies to Roger Waters), Mann almost certainly also traded
1) His heroes for ghosts.
2) Hot ashes for trees.
3) Hot air for a cool breeze.
4) Cold comfort for climate-change.
And then exchanged
5) A walk on part in the war, for
6) a lead role in a cage.
Science by Twitter.
The reason Dr Mann won’t go on stage with any skeptics is the same reason I wouldn’t step into the ring with George Foreman.
Surely the defence strategy here is to arrive in court with your basic local-variety (and preferably hired locally) solicitor, explain what you said and why, then leave the jury to work out why the poor climate scientist has million-dollar representation while your Big Oil funding only runs to Lionel Hutz
Costs only get out of hand if you try to play the same game as they are,
Supporting Steyn is Google’s search suggestions:
http://s4.postimg.org/x3jrckwgd/image.jpg
Michael Mann is…
Mann has become… the first actually real climate denier.
To the extent the both circuses and Mann are sources of entertainment for the general public, I must respectfully disagree!
ferdberple 12:02
I believe it’s called ‘vexatious litigation’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation
Mann reaps what he sows. Grants…
A little twitter conversation from Andrew Neil:
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/432255543437438976
Cambridge physics professor and Polar specialist says Arctic ice free September 2015. Make a note and we’ll check in 10 months.
make that 20 months.
Mann Oh Mann.
He is an absolute gift to those of us who require some sanity and discipline from the persons impersonating climate scientists.
All that is required to discredit those who use the Mann to promote their cause,is let him speak.
“Why we don’t debate science deniers”
Sounds a little like Dawkins and Craig. Lol
Is it possible that Mr.Mann failed to realise that Mr. Steyn could just maybe have a slight Irish accent and as a consequence misunderstood his comment re “tree-ring circus”… example follows….
An Irishman wants a job, but the foreman won’t hire him until he passes a little math test.
Here is your first question, the foreman said. “Without using numbers, represent the number 9.”
“Without numbers?” The Irishman says? “Dat is easy.” And proceeds to draw three trees.
“What’s this?” the boss asks.
“Have you ain’t got no brain? Tree and tree plus tree makes 9” says the Irishman.
“Fair enough,” says the boss. “Here’s your second question. Use the same rules, but this time the number is 99.”
The Irishman stares into space for a while, then picks up the picture that he has just drawn and makes a smudge on each tree… “Ere you go.”
The boss scratches his head and says, “How on earth do you get that to represent 99?”
“Each of da trees is dirty now. So, it’s dirty tree, and dirty tree, plus dirty tree. Dat makes 99.”
The boss is getting worried that he’s going to actually have to hire this Irishman, so he says, “All right, last question. Same rules again, but represent the number 100.”
The Irishman stares into space some more, then he picks up the picture again and makes a little mark at the base of each tree and says, “Ere you go. One hundred.”
The boss looks at the attempt. “You must be nuts if you think that represents a hundred!”
The Irishman leans forward and points to the marks at the base of each tree and whispers, “A little dog come along and poop by each tree.
So now you got dirty tree and a turd, dirty tree and a turd, and dirty tree and a turd, which makes ONE HUNDRED!”