Quote of the week: Steyn ups the ante on the Mann lawsuit

qotw_cropped

Oh, my. Steyn is not going to pull any punches after seeing what Esra Levant just did in Canada.  He hints at a strategy to “go nuclear”. He writes:

When I ran into trouble with the “human rights” commissions five years ago, I had lunch with an old friend in Montreal who said just stay quiet, keep your head down, it’ll all blow over. If I’d taken his advice, I would have lost, Maclean’s would have lost, Canada’s media would have lost basic free press rights, and Canadian citizens would have lost basic free speech rights. And then I ran into Ezra Levant, who said no, you need to go nuclear. That’s Ezra’s advice for everything – parking ticket, slow line at Tim Hortons, whatever.

So we did go nuclear.

And Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress couldn’t withstand the publicity, any more than the “human rights” racket could. By the time the CIC lost in court in British Columbia, they had already lost in a far more profound sense. I wish I were in Madam Justice Matheson’s courtroom rather than trapped on a roulette wheel of procedural sophistry in the District of Columbia. But I promise you this: by the time this is through, Michael Mann will have lost as profoundly as Elmasry did.

More on Ezra’s day in court here and here. To help support my pushback against Mann, please see here and here.

Read the full article here: An Inspiring Day

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

126 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom J
March 10, 2014 10:27 am

On many occasions, in regards to climate, the Hiroshima measurement standard has been evoked by the CAGW crowd. According to Mark Steyn it was Ezra Levant that gave him the lawyerly advice, in regards to his defamation trial by Mann, that he, Steyn, should go “nuclear.” I’d say it’s high time for the skeptic side to start measuring things with our own Hiroshima measurement standard. Man (and woman) up all you skeptics. It’s time for what goes around to come back around – good and hard.

pokerguy
March 10, 2014 10:33 am

“For example, Jones did want to share his code because it was a mess.”
Perhaps, but then there’s this: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Duster
March 10, 2014 10:35 am

richard says:
March 10, 2014 at 4:14 am
does not giving up raw data and computer codes count as intent to deceive.

No. More like pig-headed childishness. The climategate emails reveal that while Mann may have allies, he doesn’t have many friends or true supporters that actually trust him. The “Team’s” support has more of an “enemy of my enemy” flavour. Otherwise Mann would have about as much support as Doug Cotton – maybe less.

richard
March 10, 2014 10:45 am

“does not giving up raw data and computer codes count as intent to deceive”
can someone help me with my grammar it can be read both ways,
sort of like ” look a head in the river” Vs ” look ahead in the river”
or “I can’t leave her behind alone” Vs ” I can’t leave her behind, alone”

Walter Allensworth
March 10, 2014 10:54 am

Thanks Steyn!
Hope you can stick it to the Mann!!!

March 10, 2014 11:25 am

The Mann is a menace to free speech! From Davie Appell’s blog:

When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html

Reply to  Canman
March 10, 2014 12:36 pm

@Canman – I am not sure who worries me more. Mann for deciding to subvert the Constitution, or Appell for thinking he can.

KNR
March 10, 2014 11:47 am

If Mann ever gets thrown under the bus by ‘the Team’ the most important question will be, how do you find a bus with enough drivers seats for all those people that want to drive the bus?

heysuess
March 10, 2014 11:54 am

David Appell:
“I’ll be flying home tomorrow, moving Wednesday … I just hope I can get my WiFi to work again.”
And this
“I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.”
And he thinks YOU’RE stupid.

ferdberple
March 10, 2014 12:07 pm

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
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. Mickey Mouse was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraudulent
done to trick someone for the purpose of getting something valuable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_documents
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Isn’t a Nobel Prize something of value?

SkepticGoneWild
March 10, 2014 12:12 pm

“Reproducibility is regarded as one of the foundations of the entire scientific method, a benchmark upon which the reliability of an experiment can be tested” [http://explorable.com/reproducibility]
If a scientist’s experiment or study cannot be replicated for whatever reason, then that experiment does not meet the the definition of true science. It is my understanding that Mann has not released all his data, meta-data, methodologies, codes, etc. for the MBH 1998 study.whereby another scientist could repeat the exact study to confirm the results. A claim by Mann that the MBH1998 study is scientific would therefor be ****dulent. It would follow that for Steyn to claim Mann engaged in f**** (rhymes with “sod”) with respect to the hockey stick would indeed be true.

stargazer
March 10, 2014 1:40 pm

I am curious if/when Steyn prevails, does this expose UVA/Penn State and those that found no fault/fraud with Mann to legal consequences … as in conspiracy?
Personally, I think Mann is cooked. He is a public figure (reluctant by his own words, I believe). Steyn is a commentator of repute and long standing… Not much for Mann to stand on at trial.
The only problem I see at this point is if the jury is stacked with your usual knuckle-dragging, double-digit IQ, drooling on their own shoes type that is more interested in Dancing With The Stars and who just ‘know’ that CAGW is coming down the pike because they have heard it from the ‘reputable lame-stream’ media. (Which has nothing to do with the assertion of a fraudulent hockey stick.) Intelligence and truth do not always win out in a courtroom.
Still, if/when Mann loses, he will look around and then know his ‘friends’ have cast him aside as a once useful and now broken tool that is counterproductive to the ’cause.’ I am also curious if ‘Distinguished’
professor equates to ‘tenured’ professor. He might end up in the corner of a sub-basement reliving his glory days while churning out evermore flowery fake noble prize certificates on the worlds only working TRS-80.

Reply to  stargazer
March 10, 2014 1:47 pm

@Stargazer – no. Mann is not on trial, so regardless of the outcome, the only repercussions Penn State et. al. will suffer is in reputation.

Jim Bo
March 10, 2014 2:09 pm

Canman says: March 10, 2014 at 11:25 am

When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.

My God…that is an astonishing statement. Were I NR/CEI’s lawyers, Mr. Appell would be subpoena’d to repeat, under oath, Mann’s statement in their anti-Slapp appeal. It speaks directly to the purpose of criminalizing free speech, precisely what anti-Slapp is designed to thwart.
An absolutely amazing and most germane revelation courtesy of Mr. Appell that it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change.

Jim Bo
March 10, 2014 2:18 pm

Correction. Better said, It speaks directly to the purpose of suppressing free speech, precisely what anti-Slapp is designed to thwart.

Duster
March 10, 2014 2:25 pm

Sixty-five years since 1984 and astonishingly, thought police and political correctness are growing in popularity. Worse even the US is leaning toward Ingsoc.

March 10, 2014 2:50 pm

John says:
March 10, 2014 at 7:33 am
The problem is that Steyn has decided to be his own lawyer. He could very well be right on the merits, but lose because he doesn’t understand the law, because he will get outfoxed on a technicality that will sink his case. And then we will all be losers, because Michael Mann will have won, and won a case that had Steyn had a real lawyer, he would not have won.

Yep.

stargazer
March 10, 2014 3:07 pm

@philjourdan
*If* it can be shown that those who investigated or reviewed Mann’s work did not exercise proper due diligence in their review, and it can be shown that Mann ‘funnied-up’ his data and code, then those who investigated, in my opinion, enabled Mann. Not only to continue with his work, but to eventually file this lawsuit.
I am talking about a lawsuit against the reviewing entities apart from this Mann v. Steyn or Steyn v. Mann suit If it can be shown that Mann’s conclusions (the Hockey Stick) cannot be supported by the data and analysis used by Mann, then Steyn has been materially and substantially harmed by a baseless lawsuit. To me, that is an actionable offense. .An offense that could have been prevented by a more thorough review.
To my knowledge, ‘we’ have yet to see the data and the code. Have Mann defend his techniques and work in an open scientific forum. All I have seen is that he has defended his conclusions without allowing a detailed examination of anything supporting those conclusions. Same for those entities that reviewed his work.
If it comes down to a less than thorough review, somebody will have to admit to a less than competent review or something more sinister. Calling a scientist or Director of this, or a Department Chair of that, incompetent is like calling a soldier a coward. Or the Pope a pedophile. Reactions will be emotional and explosive. And that is when the whole AGW-thing explodes. Imagine a circular firing squad with Mann at the center and the reviewing entities as the squad.
Taking down Mann would be like kicking one leg off of a six-legged table. It is a start but will not end the whole CAGW myth based on the CO2 mantra that is now as political as ‘scientific.’ Knock down a few more of the the ‘scientific legs’ and all you have to worry about is the political legs that are left.

Reply to  stargazer
March 11, 2014 4:36 am

@stargazer – I concur with your conditional assessment. But I hope you are wrong about the criminal prosecution. There is too much subjective judgement in such an endeavor. While humiliation and refutation are fine, the fact is that the reviewers may have been negligent (probably were), but the determination is the scary part. I do not want the law involved in Mann’s downfall. Time and the earth will do that for us. When you start using subjective standards to enforce laws, you basically subvert the science. Subjective standards never remain the same.
That is a truism that Hansen, Mann and the rest of the charlatans have yet to learn. Yet it has been around since the dawn of civilization.

March 10, 2014 3:11 pm

Steyn absolutely should go nuclear in his defense. I have zero doubt he can his defense of this suit. He has the evidence and the witnesses to back up the fact he believes what he wrote. However, he really should drop his suit against Mann. You cannot sue someone for suing you. You can sue for attorney’s fees after you win your defense, but that’s about it. Best wishes to Mark.

Gail Combs
March 10, 2014 3:27 pm

Guy Holder says:
March 10, 2014 at 5:19 am
We need a paypal button so people can contribute without buying anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You can buy gift certificates and send them to the people of your choice.
M. Mann
Hansen
President of Penn State
President of Univ of Virgina….
Are possible choices.

Gail Combs
March 10, 2014 3:29 pm

observa says: March 10, 2014 at 5:41 am
….. someone else notices the rise and rise of the ‘professional crybabies’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
OOOooh That is better than Big Green Slime™

Udar
March 10, 2014 4:32 pm

Steven Mosher says:
March 10, 2014 at 8:21 am
“In reality the intent behind these refusals is much more mundane. For example, Jones did want to share his code because it was a mess.”

This explanation doesn’t help at all.
If Jones was embarrassed to release his code, he should have written a better code, rather then hide it.
The problem with messy code is not that it look bad, but that it is not clear whether it produces correct results. If he can’t read it, how can he know it actually calculates what it suppose to?
Because output looks about right?
But he didn’t just hid the code – he hid the actual data being processed by it. Was that because he was embarrassed by it’s quality?

Frederick Michael
March 10, 2014 4:37 pm

Keith says:
March 10, 2014 at 5:42 am
Just buy vouchers and never redeem them. Amounts to the same thing, after all.

This doesn’t make sense to me. Unless these vouchers have an expiration date, Steyn would never get the money.

Gail Combs
March 10, 2014 4:39 pm

Phil. says: March 10, 2014 at 10:13 am
….The global nature of the MWP and its timing has been questioned however….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only as Part and Parcel of the Mann slapstick routine. Remember the MWP showed in the first IPCC report (Dr Lamb) so it was not ‘Questioned’ until it was necessary to get rid of it to make the temperature fit the narrative. The Team also got rid of the 1940s blip

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
di2(DOT)nu/foia/1254108338.txt

Medieval Warm Period
Medieval Warm Period in Australia & New Zealand

Climate alarmists have claimed for quite some time that late-20th-century and early-21st-century global temperatures were so high as to merit the word “unprecedented” when comparing them to temperatures of the past millennium or two; and they also claim that this achievement was both driven and sustained by the carbon dioxide or CO2 released to the air by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil. But to maintain this dual contention, they have been forced to further contend that the well-known Medieval Warm Period was neither hemispheric nor global in scope, but merely confined to the much smaller region surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. And they have also had to contend that the MWP was never really as warm as it had long been believed to be.
In introducing their paper of quite some time ago, Wilson et al. (1979) wrote that one of their main objectives in conducting the study it described was to compare the Period anywhere other than in temperature record from New Zealand – which they emphasized is “in the Southern Hemisphere and a region meteorologically countries surrounding the unrelated to Europe” – with the climate record of England, where the MWP had already made its mark on that country’s and the surrounding region’s climatic history. Their contribution to this endeavor was to decipher the 18O/16O profile from the core to the surface of a stalagmite obtained from a cave in New Zealand, which was dated by the 14C method. And in doing so, they found that the proxy temperature record provided by the stalagmite was broadly similar to the climate record of England, exhibiting a period in the early part of the past millennium that was about 0.75°C warmer than it was in the mid-20th-century.….
A quarter of a century later, Williams et al. (2004)2 wrote that their new paper on the subject…
revealed a warmer-than-present late-Holocene warm peak located between 0.9 and 0.6 ka BP that they equated with the Medieval Warm Period of Europe, further noting that this period “coincided with a period of Polynesian settlement (McGlone and Wilmshurst, 1999).” Thereafter, they further reported that temperatures “cooled rapidly to a trough about 325 years ago,” which they said corresponded to “the culmination of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in Europe.”…
….In clear contradiction of the claims of climate alarmists, these findings are but another example of the unending stream of studies from all around the world that continue to document the global presence of a warmer-than-present Medieval Warm Period; and they are becoming ever more difficult to deny, because they demonstrate that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the Modern Warm Period….
The results of the several studies described greatly advance the thesis that the MWP was indeed a global phenomenon, wherein temperatures throughout the world were significantly warmer than they have been anytime subsequently….

NORTHERN HEMISPHERE:
Medieval Warm Period found in 120 proxies. Plus Roman era was similar to early 20th Century.

….Ljungqvist used 120 proxy records — nearly 3 times as many proxies as previous studies and conclude: “during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century”. Their proxies included ice-cores, pollen, marine sediments, lake sediments, tree-rings, speleothems and historical documentary data….
In April 2012 Christiansen and Ljungqvist published a study of 32 proxies going back as far as 1AD for the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere. They found the first millennium was warmer than the second, that the Little Ice Age (17th Century) was awfully cold and colder than the “Dark Ages” cooling (circa 300- 800AD), and about −1.0 °C below the 1880–1960AD level. It warmed a bit in the 1700′s then cooled again in the 1800′s almost back to where it was in the 1600′s. The Little Ice Age appears in records across vast areas, and the three century pattern of colder-warmer-and-almost-as-cold-again repeats all around the Northern Hemisphere….

Ocean heat content around Indonesia shows Medieval Warm Period and 2C warmth in Holocene
joannenova(DOT)com.au/2013/11/ocean-heat-content-around-indonesia-shows-medieval-warm-period-and-2c-warmth-in-holocene/
CO2Science has an interactive map with their Medieval Warm Period Project:
(wwwDOT)co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Given all this other evidence Mark Steyn’s statement was not over the top.

ttfn
March 10, 2014 4:39 pm

richard says:
March 10, 2014 at 10:45 am
‘“does not giving up raw data and computer codes count as intent to deceive”
can someone help me with my grammar it can be read both ways,’
We could have Stokes take a shot at clarifying it if you’d like.

ttfn
March 10, 2014 4:46 pm

rogerknights says:
March 10, 2014 at 9:15 am
“I’m surprised NRO hasn’t chosen to be more feisty. This is their chance to win a Pulitzer!”
I’m thinking Steyn and NRO parted company because Steyn found their insurers too confining. They’ll keep their heads down and play nice like their lawyers ask while Steyn plays bad cop. And I doubt they believe they’d ever have a shot at the Pulitzer.

ferdberple
March 10, 2014 5:18 pm

Steven Mosher
March 10, 2014 at 8:21
says:
‘In reality the intent behind these refusals is much more mundane. For example, Jones did want to share his code because it was a mess.’
==============
for example? Why not actually quote what he wrote?
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Replication is the hallmark of science. And here we have a scientist afraid that someone might be able to prove him wrong? What better test of a theory is there than someone tries to prove you wrong and fails. You would think Jones would welcome the chance – unless he knew that his work was not replicable.

Verified by MonsterInsights