UPDATE: it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.
Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. While yesterday there was an incorrect story called “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse“ being pushed by John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann’s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann’s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.
I find the name a bit of a misnomer, since AFAIK, no climate skeptic scientists are suing alarmist climate scientists, We have only Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s lawsuit (also against Tim Ball). Perhaps it should be named the Climate Science Legal Offense Fund.
In a parallel Mann legal arena, Steve McIntyre now shows that in his legal reply to the NRO/Steyn lawsuit, Dr. Mann or his attorneys altered a quote from the Muir Russell inquiry that didn’t exist. Add this to the fake “Nobel Laureate” claim in Mann’s original lawsuit (a claim which he eventually removed in an amended complaint, on Facebook (before and after), and at RC without notice), and a pattern begins to emerge that might not be looked on too kindly by a presiding judge.
He writes:
In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language.
Full story: http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
Manwhile: Steyn countersues Mann for 10 millon dollars (hilarious reading, highly recommended)
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath finds the apparent source of the language, he writes:
The doctored quote in Michael Mann’s legal reply brought to attention by Climateaudit is doing its rounds now.
Doctored quotes? Guess where my first reaction was to look.
Sure enough, this is what one finds on Skepticalscience:
See his post here: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/the-michael-mann-scientists-rigor-and-honesty-quote/
UPDATE2: Some language was updated and added in the Nobel Laureate paragraph for accuracy and broader citation.
richardscourtney says:February 22, 2014 at 10:06 am
Richard, also as a Brit, and one who has had to go to law (minor civil matter) I can concur with your deduction but it is not unlike the UK. The (UK) courts are not there to dispense justice, which is what the plaintiff seeks, they are there to dispense the law. And the beneficiaries of that are never the plaintiffs. (I lost…you guessed).
Things are not working out well for Mike.
Pi**ing off Steve M. is not exactly a winning strategy. Nor is getting caught with self-serving quote fabrication.
It’s also difficult to maintain the claim that he’s is simply an obscure scientist working diligently and quietly in search of the truth with thousands of comments flooding into several prominent blogs. The public is showing a remarkable amount of interest in a “non-public” figure!
Where is this fund?
Here:
http://www.steynonline.com/
And if you want to give Tim Ball a $ or two:
http://drtimball.com/donate/
Matt:
At February 22, 2014 at 10:35 am you say to me
Yes, I know. Indeed, that is what I said here.
But the difference seems to be that in our system(s) – Scotland has significant differences from England and Wales – the parties are each expected to present their case BEFORE the trial and not to obtain their cases during the trial by use of the explained US system of “disclosure”.
Indeed, I am sure there are good reasons for “disclosure” but I cannot imagine what they are. Either a plaintiff and a defendant each has a case or they don’t. In our system(s) the trial exists to assess the cases but it seems that the US system uses the trial to create the cases by “disclosure”.
It is this fundamental difference between the UK and US systems which caused my puzzlement: the idea that a trial may exist to enable construction of a case had not occurred to me.
Richard
The legal ‘stuff’ is interesting and not knowing anything about US of A’s ‘system’, it might be of interest, that the Swedish government, under G. Persson, paid 200 – 500 mio SEK/year in ‘settlements’ outside the EU-Courts. Of course, all of this was never reported in MSM nor ‘public service’…
So, when learning/reading of the ‘Swedish way’: be alert, very alert and read the ‘small prints’ (if they are available…)
Brgds from Sweden
/TJ
davidmhoffer says:
What is left to discover to support Mann’s case?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I for one assume Mann’s purpose is to punish Steyn and stifle his speech and that of other journalists, etc.
Discovery will be long and often delayed, brutal and expensive, as it has been for Dr. Ball. There’s no rush to get to court as Mann likely wants to keep Steyn locked in a legal bear-hug. Steyn isn’t playing ball.
Harry Passfield:
Thankyou for your post at February 22, 2014 at 10:45 am.
Sorry you lost your case. I write to thank you for explicitly stating of the UK legal system(s)
Yes, of course you are right. I have been equating “justice” with “the law” but – as you say – they may not be the same thing.
As you say, the Courts exist to dispense the law.
Richard
It appears that Mann has a very casual relationship with the truth…
@richard Sharpe: You may go to Steyn’s website and purchase a gift certificate and then fail to redeem it for any merchandise. A de facto fund, not per se.
Pretty soon Mann will figure out to send his legal briefs, with the skid marks and all, out here to WUWT laundry service for a quick cleaning.
I wonder where the provenance of the misquote (SkS) leaves Mann? He could say that he believed the quote genuine, but that would drop his chums in it, which would be a shame; wouldn’t it? 🙂
The legal systems of the US, UK, Canada, etc, are all founded on pretty much the same principle:
In the event that two farmers enter into a dispute about a cow, two lawyers shall end up with a side of beef each
Only the torturous path by which this is achieved differs from one country to the next.
thats interesting about the 501 c3 stuff.
I wonder if there may be something there too that us taxpayers can make an issue of.
“Indeed, I am sure there are good reasons for “disclosure” but I cannot imagine what they are. Either a plaintiff and a defendant each has a case or they don’t. In our system(s) the trial exists to assess the cases but it seems that the US system uses the trial to create the cases by “disclosure”.”
In this case the problem seems to be that Mann will not release the “climategate” emails pertaining to his involvement with “The Team” and the workings behind his “hockey stick” and that is the basis for the need for “disclosure”. The thinking is that he does not want to indulge in self incrimination by releasing said information.
Further links to articles and court documents on Mann v. Ball see:
SpotlightON – Michael Mann v Tim Ball et al.
http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2013/10/spotlighton-michael-mann-v-tim-ball-et.html
John Peter:
Thankyou for your post at February 22, 2014 at 11:11 am which quotes my having said
then explains
Indeed, and what may be revealed by the case explains the interest of me and some others.
However, the nature of “disclosure” is what surprised me. Please note that I have no truck for Mann, but this case demonstrates what I had failed to understand. I explain as follows.
Steyn made some statements.
Mann sued claiming the statements were defamatory because a to n.
I assumed Steyn would have to say they were not defamatory because a1 to n1.
And I assumed that each could demand evidence of a to n and a1 to n1.
But it seems both Mann and Steyn can each demand information from the other to obtain a to n and a1 to n1. That seems to make no sense because the obtained information does not pertain to the what and the why of Steyn’s statements at the time he made them with knowledge he then had. However, that is what I now understand to be the legal reality on the basis of what has been told to me here.
Richard
“it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.”
Nice example of the echo chamber in action.
‘but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report’
A basic fail for any undergraduate handing in a essay , and yet has we have often seen the professional working in climate ‘science’ cannot met this actually low standard. So why the surprise?
This could not have happened to a nicer Mann….
The discovery process is aimed at uncovering information that could reasonably be expected to result in the discovery of admissible evidence. There are some exclusions to what can be discovered depending on the circumstances of the case. The wiki article below gives a good quick summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_%28law%29
#30 is pretty good too: “Denies the allegations in Paragraph Thirty, especially the allegation that obscure unread losers at whatever “Discover Magazine” is are in any sense “respectable and well-regarded journalists”.”
It is entirely possible that M Mann gave Skeptical Science the quotes.. Do you recall he gave them advice to beef up the SkS hide the decline rebutall.
Either way. Who dropped who in it, with that manufactured quote is amusing.
Language lifted from Skeptical Science…
“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!”
Quote lifted from Warren G. Harding
re: Jim Steele’s posting
“From Sheldon Kamieniecki Dean, Division of Social Sciences UC Santa Cruz
Subject: EVENT: Climate Science and Policy through the Looking Glass Conference”
They must be pretty confident to spell it out so openly …
And having Michael Mann as keynote speaker puts the icing on the cake. (I wonder, will they close the conference with a chorus of “Hide the Decline” ?)
@climatebeagle –
So the Womann-named-Sue not only is paid googoogobs of money to write his propaganda, she is also paid googoogobs of money to assault skeptics in court. Wow.
Another discussion of discovery
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/formal-discovery-gathering-evidence-lawsuit-29764.html