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.
Mr. Jan says:
February 9, 2014 at 7:27 am
“Being dragged into court for detaining Dr. Mann’s work will put him in the uncomfortable position of having to actually prove that his accusations have some merit and are not meely cheap slander. “
Nope. Mann has to prove they have no merit, and further, that Steyn knew they had no merit.
” Call me when someone collects actual data that contradicts Dr. Mann’s studies.”
Sorry, not our job. We can’t spare the rolodex entry for every minor crank who ignores all the studies already available.
Judge Weisberg’s opinion was pathetic. Instead of “Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, . . . ” he should have viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the First Amendment rights of the defendants. Here is a case, virtually indistinguishable in points of law from the Mann/Steyn case, in which the courts determined that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP statute did apply to a defamation case:
ww.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20130627_130516_boley_opinion.pdf
The only substantive difference that I can see between the two cases is that the defendants were liberal journalists in this case and not aggressive conservatives as is the case with NR and CEI, Steyn and Simberg.
I sense that Weisberg is going to run a trial that will be prejudicial to the defendants and that Steyn et al could be found guilty of defamation with malice aforethought. But I predict that that verdict will be quickly overturned on appeal. There is simply no case law that I can find that would support a finding of defamation in this case. Mann is a public figure and has every means at his disposal to respond vigorously to to the accusations and adverse characterizations of him. He’s written books, runs a website, appears regularly on media and has columns published in the New York Times. The idea that he is not a public figure who can’t defend himself and his scientific findings is ludicrous.
Potter Eaton says:
February 9, 2014 at 9:49 am
” It could mean that he believes Mann used data that was incorrect and didn’t know it.”
Perhaps it was unconscious self-delusion – he just knew the answer beforehand, so presenting only data supporting that answer is, in his mind, merely dispensing with the chaff. Such activity can fairly be characterized externally as cheating.
fraud·u·lent [fraw-juh-luhnt]
adjective
2. given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.
” Bart says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 9, 2014 at 10:07 am “
Mod – if you feel my comment at February 9, 2014 at 10:07 am is a little too edgy to allow, I fully understand. It is sad that Mann’s effort at suppressing speech could have such an effect, but I understand that this site must also be careful in what it allows to be published. Too bad you don’t really have sacks of Big Oil money lying around to engage in protracted lawsuits, as apparently some people do from some source or another.
How could Mann not have known about this? He was the one who hid contrary data in his “censored” ftp file.
You can see the result if he had used the data: there would have been no scary “hockey stick” warming in his chart.
Can’t have that, not if you’re the great Michael Mann, boy wonder.
Here’s an interesting 12 minute debate between attorneys Roger Simmons and Ken Starr in 1994 on the Moldea v New York Times case in which the appeals court actually reversed itself ten weeks after issuing a decision:
Simmons seems to be in shock over the reversal.
This case was over a book review in the Times that attacked Moldea’s book on organized crime influence in the NFL. Starr makes the interesting point that book reviews and punditry are given extra leeway in the opinions that they publish, which is relevant to the Mann/Steyn case.
Mr. Jan says:
February 9, 2014 at 7:27 am
“Mr. Steyn is being sued for claiming that Doctor Mann manipulated his data.”
Really? Is that what Steyn said? Since you can write, I’m assuming you can also read. The following is the entirety or what Steyn wrote. Feel free to point out where he said “Doctor Mann manipulated his data.”
[Mr Watts, feel free to delete this post if you like. It’s just that I’m sick of trolls with reading disabilities putting words in Mr Steyn’s mouth]
Steyn’s The Corner minus the Simberg quote:
In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:
[snip simberg quote]
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. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
“NoMiddleAgeWarmingOnMySchtick says:
February 9, 2014 at 7:42 am
Under Wikipedia, Vexatious Litigant, one of the labeled Vexatious Litigants is the Church of Scientology.
Perhaps Steyn could get the “Church of Climate Change” (previously known as the “Church of Global Warming”) declared as a Vexatious Litigant. It is definetly a Religion to them and to deny is to be labeled a Heretic.”
Actually would be interesting to see the $cieno Church go after Mann for some reason (ring of fire patented as the reason for global warming, volcanos from way back when caused cooling, etc., etc.). Kobrin and Moxon versus the Marlboro Mann…they’d be tied up in court for a billion years at least…meanwhile the rest of us could get on with life and prepare for the cooling, and try to get energy prices down before it hits….
Seems like there is a danger in this Mann v. Steyn suit. Are scientists going to get an elevated status in the courts? I really don’t think we want that. Scientific debates can be some of the most vituperative debates that there are. Seems like there is a risk that judges are setting themselves up to settle the science. In the end will it be? Mann is a paid scientist but Steyn earns money by writing therefore Mann is right and Steyn is wrong. Frankly I think Mann should just admit that as a researcher utilizing public funds he qualifies a “public figure” which would make it more difficult for him to sue. Shouldn’t people be able to call out when they feel a scientist is wasting money by using dubious methodologies, ie hiding the decline. It was Mann’s colleagues that described him as “hiding the decline” perhaps he should be suing them.
AGW “scientists” could find 2 100 dollar bills on the sidewalk one minute apart, then would spend the next 5 days writing a paper claiming they’ll be millionaires the day after its published …
HankHenry says:
There’s no reasonable question that Mann is a public figure, but not because, he’s researcher utilizing public funds, which isn’t enough, and shouldn’t be enough. He’s a public figure because he’s an editor of the IPCC report, operates a website devoted to climate change, writes books about climate change, writes editorials for widely-circulated newspapers about climate change and the environment, and uses social media to publicly disparage skeptics of the “consensus” view of climate change.
Question
So who is this guy Mann?
He sounds like a real Ahole
: )
[Reply: do a search using keyword ‘Mann’. Make up your own mind. ~ mod.]