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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Bear quotes:
“But I promise you this: by the time this is through, Michael Mann will have lost as profoundly as Elmasry did.”
This is a silly thing to say, Mr Steyn. I hope you win, but you can no more guarantee a win than can Obama “stop the oceans rising …”
@John Tyler – I’m with you, Fraud is fraud., and the Womann-named-Sue deserves the worst that could befall her. GO MARK STEYN, and throw in a few MOABs (Mother of All Bombs) along with your nukes, for punctuation, while you’re at it.
“Fraud”: Deception deliberately practiced with a view to gaining an
unlawful or unfair advantage; artifice by which the right
or interest of another is injured; injurious stratagem;
deceit; trick.
If Mann’s egregiously artificial “Hockey Stick” does not meet this 1913 dictionary definition, then what does? Take my Affordable Healthcare Program– please.
More readers should donate to Steyn, and those that already have, should donate more.
Nobody wants him to be completely tapped out when damages and costs are awarded to Mann, after all.
Most states follow the “innocent construction” rule. That means that if any interpretation of Steyn’s comment can be interpreted as nondefamatory, it will be. There is a “choice of law” issue here (which states law will be followed by the federal court). An innocent construction motion to dismiss the complaint can be brought up before or after discovery, but here discovery should be pursued, including carefully scripted depositions. If Steyn gets himself a competent attorney he should win, especially since he didn’t call Mann a fraud, but the hockey stick theory.
TBear – I think you have misunderstood the quote. Steyn had written at length about how Elmasry, five years later, is irrelevant and almost invisible, whereas when Steyn first took him on he was a prominent public figure who was quoted and courted by the media. That was the real damage that Steyn inflicted on him, irrespective of the formal outcome.
It’s odd that Mark Steyn is Canadian, as they are usually less prone to the hysterical right-wing attitudes which harm the defense of climate change skepticism in the USA.
Fraud, knowingly supplying information that supports a falsified hypothesis, when there is no rational fact to this conclusion, and refusing to submit ones data is corrupting the data to prove your hypothesis. That’s scientific fraud. Like the Piltdown man. Just hope the judge isn’t a creationist, that still believe the world was created in six days. And quoting Sarah Palin, ‘humans walked with dinosaurs…?” Put another 00000000 on the end then the sequences of evolution is most probably right as put down in Genesis. That is corrupting the data to prove the hypothesis. With the scientific world per IPCC consensus, don’t want one of their own charged with scientific fraud, Steyn is doing humanity a great service. Go Mark!
Interesting posting in Steve Goddard’s blog recently, showing that the treemometers were dead accurate, but once the records had been fudged, they didn’t match any more. So the “paste-over” had to be done — matching fudges!
Let’s suppose a scientist makes a fundamental mistake which invalidates his conclusions. If it’s a genuine mistake then clearly it’s not fraud, it’s a mistake.
But suppose that the mistake is clear and publicly provable, and that the scientist is aware of this. If the scientist refuses to retract the research then it becomes fraudulent.
In the case of Mann, there are many obvious problems, as demonstrated by McIntyre and McKitrick. But there appears to be one that eclipses all the others: if you feed in random (red) data, Mann’s method still creates perfect hockey sticks. If that’s true then, clearly, MBH98 should be withdrawn.
Clearly Mann is aware of this problem. If it could be proven in court that Mann was aware of the problem, and that the problem can be proven in court, then Mann would lose.
Of course,there’s more: inconvenient data hidden away in a directory named ‘Censored’, and Mann’s upside-down Tiljander data.
I hope justice will eventually triumph.
Chris
Chris Wright says:
March 11, 2014 at 4:15 am
Let’s suppose a scientist makes a fundamental mistake which invalidates his conclusions. If it’s a genuine mistake then clearly it’s not fraud, it’s a mistake.
But suppose that the mistake is clear and publicly provable, and that the scientist is aware of this. If the scientist refuses to retract the research then it becomes fraudulent.
In the case of Mann, there are many obvious problems, as demonstrated by McIntyre and McKitrick. But there appears to be one that eclipses all the others: if you feed in random (red) data, Mann’s method still creates perfect hockey sticks. If that’s true then, clearly, MBH98 should be withdrawn.
But that hasn’t been done, M&M didn’t feed in ‘random (red) data’, they used data with inappropriate choice of parameters which were designed to produce ‘hockey sticks’. When challenged about what they’d done they dodged and weaved and avoided addressing the point. They didn’t use Mann’s method they used a different one that they’d made up.
The court case in Canada Steyn won consisted of him throwing the word “anti-semitic” at some Muslims, and them throwing the word “Islamophobic” back. He won this battle of political correctness, because he was on the more powerful side. That is not the case with the Michael Mann case, and he shouldn’t be so confident of winning.
Mod…my earlier comment (from which you kindly attempted to remove my editing residue) still reads incorrectly and misrepresents my intended comment. If you would kindly indulge me one last time…Thanks
Canman says: March 10, 2014 at 11:25 am
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.
Steven Mosher says:
‘In reality the intent behind these refusals is much more mundane. For example, Jones did [not] want to share his code because it was a mess.’
I write code for a living. To that, I say, All the more reason to share it. Messy code is far more likely to have errors. Having it looked at by others is the best way to find said errors.
Or was Jones hiding his code so that the errors couldn’t be found? (given his statements, I would suspect this to be likely)
John Greenfraud says: March 10, 2014 at 8:32 am
Is Steyn dealing with Mann the “scientist” or Mann the political propagandist?
Is that a trick question? I’ve yet to see any evidence that supports labeling Mann a scientist.
Mann could settle out of court? You withdraw your case and I will withdraw mine. I hope Mark doesn’t opt for this easy solution. It depends on his prosecuting defense and what evidence they have that seals their case?
I beleive Michael Mann qualifies as a “public figure” for purposes of the libel laws. He can only sue under a limited set of circumstances involving reckless disregard of or intentionally misreporting facts. It’s a pretty high bar in most cases. Here’s wishing him a big ol can of Mark Steyn whupa$$.
“But that hasn’t been done, M&M didn’t feed in ‘random (red) data’, they used data with inappropriate choice of parameters which were designed to produce ‘hockey sticks’. When challenged about what they’d done they dodged and weaved and avoided addressing the point. They didn’t use Mann’s method they used a different one that they’d made up”
So cherry pick your data and you can come up with a hockeystick.
richard says:
March 13, 2014 at 8:08 am
“But that hasn’t been done, M&M didn’t feed in ‘random (red) data’, they used data with inappropriate choice of parameters which were designed to produce ‘hockey sticks’. When challenged about what they’d done they dodged and weaved and avoided addressing the point. They didn’t use Mann’s method they used a different one that they’d made up”
So cherry pick your data and you can come up with a hockey stick
That appears to be what M&M and Wegman did.
I don’t think that cherry picking is unusual if you want to prove one’s hypothesis is correct. Corrupting the data to suit the hypothesis is a well known academic exercise that can be fully pointed out by other academics. Especially polls and statistical data. If you get a grant to prove your data collected proves a scientifically based hypothesis or theory, it is open to other scientists coming back at you with credible criticisms. If I only pick one tree species to base my data on, what does that prove? You have to prove your experiment is correct by applying many variables. Like this species in England did not suffer the same growth pattern as my tree. Gosh, put a deciduous tree against an evergreen would show definite patterns of growth dissimilarities. Not only because their natural growth patterns but also one sheds its leave during winter and the other stays fully leafed or needled because it has adapted to handle cold weather. His data is off the air. “Tell a lie long enough, and people will believe it.” Who said that Goebels or one of leading Nazis?
richard says:
March 13, 2014 at 8:08 am
“But that hasn’t been done, M&M didn’t feed in ‘random (red) data’, they used data with inappropriate choice of parameters which were designed to produce ‘hockey sticks’. When challenged about what they’d done they dodged and weaved and avoided addressing the point. They didn’t use Mann’s method they used a different one that they’d made up”
So cherry pick your data and you can come up with a hockey stick
That appears to be what M&M and Wegman did.
and Michael Mann.
R.O.T.F.L.