Site of Mann-Steyn legal showdown catches fire

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.

@ur momisugly 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.