Site of Mann-Steyn legal showdown catches fire

Global warming again…

USA Today reports that some researchers believe they can predict El Niño much earlier. At the end of the article, there is a curious comment by Michael Mann. It sounds more like a statement from a propagandist than a scientist. First of all, no AGW skeptic (or climate change contrarian as he calls it) believes that climate change has “stopped” since it has been going on for eons.
Secondly, El Niño is a natural phenomenon and the warming it causes says nothing about the effect of CO2 emitted by humans. So Mann’s statement is a silly statement on all accounts.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/02/10/el-nino-prediction/5368631/
Quote from USA Today:
[Researchers also say that an El Niño event may form, with about a 75% likelihood, later this year. This goes along with a prediction made last week by the U.S. Climate Prediction Center.
“As the article notes, if this does happen, we will likely see a new global temperature record in 2015,” Mann said. “Perhaps that will put to rest once and for all the silly notion, promoted by climate change contrarians, that climate change has ‘stopped’.”
“It of course has not, but the prevalence of neutral and La Niña conditions in recent years has temporarily masked the ongoing global warming trend.”]

Oh, it actually caught fire! I thought you were being metaphoric. ;->

rk says:
February 11, 2014 at 5:47 pm
There’s an interesting link in that column, interesting in that it makes fun of Begley and Revkin, but more importantly because it may be the first instance of Steyn’s tree-ring circus pun and also uses the f-word. Turns out Steyn said essentially the same thing back in 2009 on the NRO web site. Makes me think that the only reason Mann is suing this time is because Simberg brought up Penn State’s other notable resident, Sandusky. Here and I thought he was being so noble defending the sanctity of the science. Is there a statute of limitations for libel? I mean, if someone calls you an idiot in 2009 and repeats it 3 years later, can you then decide to take offense? Couldn’t someone take your silence on the matter as tacit agreement?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228696/crus-tree-ring-circus/mark-steyn

Mann’s statement; “As the article notes, if this does happen, we will likely see a new global temperature record in 2015,” Mann said. “Perhaps that will put to rest once and for all the silly notion, promoted by climate change contrarians, that climate change has ‘stopped’.” may mean that he knows that NOAA/NASA are about to make even greater negative adjustments to historical temperature records.

@Potter Eaton
“Does anyone have a clue why Steyn just doesn’t start a legal defense fund? Is there some kind of tax disincentive with that? Or tax incentive by collecting money through the sale of gift certificates.”
I read it this way: there have been so many wretched things said about so many climate realists which were parroted in the media as truths that opening a legal defense fund could cause PR problems. I someone who is demonized in the press were to contribute, Mann’s attorneys would play up that fact, “So-and-so is paying this guy to blah-blah-blah…”
Having raised money through normal business ventures greatly weakens such specious arguments.
I like the Scopes Monkey Trial of the 21st Century moniker. Quite right. It has proven very difficult to get one of these guys into court.
Re the 2009 comment saying pretty much the same thing, the answer is sort of ‘yes’. If Mann was aware of it and Steyn can prove it, and nothing was done, at a minimum some explanation may be required.
What McIntyre wrote about the hockey stick chart and its provenance was of course far more damning than anything else said since as it demonstrated conclusively, scientifically, that the chart was created through deliberate subterfuge, how that subterfuge was achieved, what measures Mann took to hide it and, after exposure to the world of science, what measures he took to sustain the original fabricated claims. The suit against Steyn is not ‘out of the blue’ it is a continuation of the latter set of measures taken to sustain the original, disproven claims.

How did Mann’s “pants” get into the courtroom before the proceedings?

ttfn says:
February 11, 2014 at 6:16 pm
——————–
ttfn: That is a great find. Can you imagine if Mann had sued Steyn then, in the heat of the early days of Climategate? He would have been excoriated by public opinion. But that piece shows Steyn’s genius and abiltity to cut through the nonsense and get to the crux of the argument. It was devastating to Mann and the IPCC authors. So Mann held his hatred of Steyn close to his vest and then three years later acted upon it. Steyn is just as specific in his accusation of fraud in that 2009 piece when he says “Confronted by serious questions from Stephen McIntyre, the dogged Ontario retiree whose Climate Audit website exposed the fraud of Dr. Mann’s global-warming “hockey stick” graph), . . .” as he was three years later in the piece quoting Simberg. He essentially repeated himself. Why is it so much more offensive now than it was then?
No, what the little Mann did was wait until Steyn quoted someone else who made an incendiary analogy between molesting children and molesting data, an analogy that even Steyn found distasteful. He did that so he could tie Steyn and NR in with that kind of intemperate rhetoric.
Selective outrage and tactical use of the legal process to squelch dissent. That’s what Mann is doing.
You’ve linked a great article for Steyn to use in his defense because it thoroughly explains Steyn’s obvious antipathy for Mann, which derives from Mann’s corrupt rigging of the peer-reviewed process. That’s why Steyn dislikes Mann– he’s a soviet-style ideological scientist. It’s not only that Mann doesn’t want his scientific output to be challenged, he wants to destroy the professional lives of those who have alternative theories.
In other words, Steyn’s contempt for Mann is eminently defensible from a scientific and intellectual point of view. As a polemicist, he was doing his job in alerting the public to scientific malfeasance. If he is convicted of defamation for that, we are all in very deep trouble.

@ jai mitchell
February 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm
—————————————
Your understanding of the law in this case is on par with my understanding of nuclear physics. I was an English major in college.

jai mitchell says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm
” … Im sorry, but that kind of hate speech against a private individual is simply slanderous. Willful and illegal. …”
—-l
Do you think the term “denier” would qualify as hate speech?
After the whole affair has run its course, I predict that most of the (thinking) world will conclude that it was Mann after all, in the library, with the hocky stick.

Paul Pierett says: “There is the scandal with the emails.”
\When it comes to demonstrating INTENT to defraud, these appear to be the easiest evidence for ordinary jurors to understand without expert knowledge of statistics.
BTW, just what is a “jury of peers” in a case like this?

I would never try to predict (project?) the outcome of a trial in which the most esoteric of legal nuance can drive the ultimate outcome. While I suspect that there was some untoward science involved in the creation of the hockey stick, amongst other possible transgressions, Steyn may (emphasis on ‘may’) have left himself exposed in stating – or even re-stating – an absolute (in my opinion). That said, I wish him the best and hope that any needed evidence to exonerate him is forthcoming.

Having read several of the examples at the Shollenberger link, and assuming those examples can be verified, I feel better for Steyn’s chances at prevailing. A great link. Reminded me of several claims made against Mann over the years. Cheers to Shollenberger for his undertaking.

while u discuss mann/steyn, please note this:
12 Feb: Bloomberg: Mark Drajem: Capturing Carbon May Add 80% to Electric Costs: Official
Capturing carbon from coal-burning power plants would increase the cost of electricity at those facilities by as much as 80 percent, more than utilities would get by selling the carbon, an Energy Department official said.
Julio Friedmann, the deputy assistant secretary of the Energy Department, told a congressional hearing today that his office is working to develop joint carbon-capture projects with utilities. As the technology advances, costs to install the equipment can be cut in half, he said.
“We cannot attract private investment in the first plant, absent government support,” Friedmann told a panel of the House Energy and Commerce committee. “We need second-generation large pilot projects” to bring down costs, he said…
“We still don’t have a replicable model,” Louisiana Republican Representative Steve Scalise said. “Consumers are concerned about whether or not that’s going to increase their electricity rates.”
Friedmann said the first carbon-capture plants will increase the cost of building and operating a plant by 70 percent to 80 percent for wholesale electricity rates. Those plants can recoup about half the cost by selling the carbon dioxide…
The Energy Department provided $270 million to Southern Co. (SO) for its carbon-capture plant in Kemper County, Mississippi. Southern will sell the carbon dioxide it captures to oil drillers, who use it to boost production in old oil fields…
“Kemper has a special place in our hearts,” Friedmann said. The company has plans for future plants that would use similar technology, he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-11/capturing-carbon-may-add-80-to-electric-costs-official.html

Larry Hamlin, I haven’t talked to Steve McIntyre about this project, but I’ve long followed his work. He’s responsible for me even following Michael Mann’s work (I became intrigued when I stumbled upon his pre-Climate Audit website). Without his efforts, I’d never be able to do a project like this. That said, while I hope to have him review/comment on the posts I write, I don’t expect him to get extensively involved.
Gunga Din, definitely not. That file had nothing to do with Michael Mann’s work, and while his methodology definitely mines for hockey sticks, there’s no single line responsible for it. And it’s not because of any “fudge factor” (that’s a separate issue all together).
Fabi, not only can those examples be verified, I’ve already begun writing a series of posts which demonstrate them (including references for verification of what I say). I wrote the first post in the series shortly after the one linked to in this blog post. You can find it here.
That post was up less than 24 hours after the introductory post. I can’t guarantee the rest will go up that quickly. My goal is to have a new post in the series up every two to three days.

Potter Eaton said at: February 11, 2014 at 5:26 pm
“Does anyone have a clue why Steyn just doesn’t start a legal defense fund? Is there some kind of tax disincentive with that? Or tax incentive by collecting money through the sale of gift certificates?”
Mark Steyn has written that he does not like the very idea of such a fund. He would rather just fight for his right to write what he wants, especially since American libel law provides a steep standard for public figures, like Michael Mann, to prove actual malice. Parody is completely protected. I’d bet my last dollar that he wins. In Canada they tried the same type of witch hunt against Steyn, and he not only won, the case caused the Canadian law against inconvenient writing to be repealed. If we can’t lampoon and parody a public figure (and self described political acticist) like Mann, then the first amendment is not worth the parchment it was written on.

pat says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:45 pm
as soon as i saw the headline, i knew only Readfearn could have written this “thing”:
12 Feb: Guardian

Potter Eaton says:
February 11, 2014 at 8:04 pm
“Can you imagine if Mann had sued Steyn then, in the heat of the early days of Climategate?”
Indeed. I imagine the Merry Mitchells of the world would have had a difficult time keeping a straight face coming in here armed with nothing more than a Salon clip and righteous indignation because “Steyn also quoted a line by Mann where he threatened to blacklist a science publication for not going along with the consensus.” Doesn’t quite have the same ring, although I have no doubt that the Merry Mitchells of the world would have made the attempt. Their thug Mann has labelled real scientists #AntiScience, cheered on other scientists as they had editors removed, threatened to blacklist journals who dared to stray from their consensus, accused McIntyre of scientific fraud, engaged the power of the state to silence his critics, etc. – and the Merry Mitchells of the world are all okay with that.
Steyn writes, “I don’t care for all this beyond-the-pale stuff, because the pale is already way too shrunk. And, aside from anything else, once you get into the habit of banning and proscribing, your critical thinking goes all to hell. Many of us have seen one or two of those ill-advised shows on al-Arabiya or al-Jazeera in which some fire-breathing imam invites on a despised, Westernized, apostate woman in order to crush her like a bug, only to have her run rings round him. The Syrian émigré Wafa Sultan famously did it to Faisal al-Qassem and Ibrahim al-Khouli. It’s hardly surprising that a culture that puts so much of life beyond discussion renders its inmates literally speechless — to the point where, faced with, say, a school teddy bear innocently named Mohammed, the default opening gambit at the local debating society is to shriek “Allahu Akbar!” and start killing.”
He then goes on to say that we’re not there yet, but I wonder. A woman who makes a foolish off-the-cuff tweet before embarking on a trip to South Africa is jobless upon her arrival. A comedian tweets a joke about transsexuals and is forced to write some self-serving pathetic apology to quiet the twitter gestapo (for some reason rednecks don’t enjoy that protection). And here we have descending on our favorite blog where free discussion is graciously encouraged by the host the Merry Mitchells of the world brandishing Salon clips, prayers for Steyn’s destruction and not a single example of “critical thinking.”

@jai mitchell –
Not hate speech, just the truth expressed through a forceful metaphor. And ultimately, the Womann-named-Sue is going to leave behind a particularly foul stench, right up there with Sandusky’s, at State Penn. The analogy is correct and deserved.

Simon wrote: ” Given his lawyer s have dumped him . . .”
From Steyn’s interview with Mother Jones:

BLAKE: What led to the parting of ways between you and Steptoe & Johnson?
STEYN: My decision to fire them.
BLAKE: I understand that Steptoe plans to withdraw as the National Review’s counsel as well. Do you know why?
STEYN: Yes. But I am not at liberty to say, alas.
BLAKE: How do you plan to proceed now that you’re not working with Steptoe? Have you hired another attorney? Or do you plan to represent yourself?
STEYN: Well, my check from the Koch brothers seems to have been lost in the mail or intercepted by the NSA to pay for their Christmas party, so for the moment I am representing myself. If you know your 1970s disaster movies, it’s like Airport ’75: the stewardess is flying the plane.
BLAKE: I notice that you haven’t done any new posts for the National Review since Dec. 24, whereas normally you’re quite prolific. Are you still writing for NRO?
STEYN: Yes, I’ve noticed that, too. But I am in the current print edition, gently calling for a little bit more of a spirited free speech campaign on this. That’s how I won and got the relevant law changed up in Canada.

So you see, you’ve told a falsehood there, kind of like Mann claiming to be a Nobel Prize recipient in his complaint.

“Wasn’t it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said there is no right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded courthouse?”
I don’t know. Why do you ask?

goldminor says:
February 11, 2014 at 10:34 pm
” What would possibly cause ‘Cumulative security update for Internet Explorer 8′ to disappear about 20 times over the last several years …”
—-l
Possibly Micro$oft.
I believe you when you say that you do not believe you are wrong in this matter. I urge you to do the test I recommended for your own peace of mind, preferably using someone else’s machine. If you can demonstrate that warmists find you important enough to hack and are doing so by rolling back your Microsoft security updates, you will have performed a major service for seceptics everywhere 🙂
If you are in the mood for experimenting, try Firefox.

Mr Steyn seemingly doesn’t need/want financial support from abroad. No PayPal, no Visa = no money from me. Sorry.