Popcorn futures continue to explode
Mark Steyn writes:
Today I filed with the DC Superior Court an Amended Answer and Counterclaims to Mann’s Amended Complaint.
The new bit is the third counterclaim way down on page 21. We’re moving toward trial, and if you want to support my pushback against Mann I hope you’ll consider buying a SteynOnline gift certificate or one of our new Clash of Sticks products.
More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6165/a-change-of-climate
page 21/22:
Looks to me like Steyn is suing Mann for $30 million now.
In other news, popcorn futures have exploded beyond what anyone thought possible, creating a new hockey stick shape that portends a precarious future for Dr. Mann:
If I were Steyn, I’d start selling popcorn too.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steyn knows his counterclaims are doubly fanciful: there is no chance he will win, and even if he were to win, there is no chance he would be awarded or be able to collect the sums claimed. He is known for his mocking irony, and he is just having some fun with this. But the counterclaims are highly problematic and have at least one serious implication.
Claiming to be the victim of a malicious and frivolous action, after a judge has already ruled that there is enough evidence to proceed, is tantamount to appealing that judge’s decision without actually appealing it. I don’t think any court would allow such a collateral appeal. Indeed, Mann can now apply to have Steyn’s counterclaims thrown out, and there is a fair to excellent chance of such a motion succeeding. Steyn would then be liable to pay Mann’s costs for that epicycle in the proceedings. Plus, they would delay the main action for another year or so.
The serious legal implication is this: If, as is most likely, Mann loses his claim and Steyn loses his counterclaim, costs will likely be deemed to nullify each other. Whereas if Steyn had simply defended against Mann’s claim, it is a certainty he would be entitled to his costs. So having some fun with the counterclaims might end up costing Steyn hundreds of thousands of dollars in foregone costs.
As for representing himself, I’m not convinced he is putting himself in much jeopardy. There are other defendants who have lawyers. If some tricky procedural thing happens, he can wait to see how the other guys’ lawyers handle it, and then follow suit.
So how hard would it be to get a line up of experts to express their opinion about using tree rings as a proxy for temperature? How many of those experts would likely say that using tree rings as proxies for temperature was fraudulent?
“Mann can now apply to have Steyn’s counterclaims thrown out, and there is a fair to excellent chance of such a motion succeeding. Steyn would then be liable to pay Mann’s costs for that epicycle in the proceedings.”
——————————————————————————
It is not a given that Steyn would have to pay Mann’s costs just because his counterclaim is dismissed, any more than it is a given that he would automatically be liable for Mann’s costs if Mann’s action succeeds.
“Given that Mann has a plausible claim to the defamation, it becomes almost an impossible burden to overcome.”
PLausibility is in the eye of the beholder. We’ve already seen that Mann’s contention Steyn should have known he had been explicitly “exonerated” by various panels is false, in I believe at last count, 5 separate instances. Mann’s case looks extremely weak now.
The real victory in Steyn’s case would be if the Womann-named-Sue is forced to hand over all her code and data for the world to see. That would presumably destroy her once and for all (though of course there would still be plenty of die-hard believers).
March 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm | asybot says:
This must be why Obummer sacrificed US citizens at Benghazi … a planned terrorist attack is of little threat compared to the GW-WMD. Alternatively, the truly brave and patriotic souls sacrificed there did not share his regime’s world view of the non-problem of global warming.
March 13, 2014 at 2:16 pm | ttfn says:
It’ll have to be with us in Australia … we’re the only free country left for the time being. We’d be pleased to accommodate your wishes.
March 13, 2014 at 3:23 pm | johanna says:
One would have to think so, Jo. First principle of negotiation is to not negotiate on the terms of the other party … take away their perceived advantage … Steyn is smart in doing this and not being cowered by and dancing to Mann’s tune. Steyn is playing his own tune and Mann will eventually have to dance to it.
Popcorn and Milk Duds!!!!
It’s pretty clear that (with one or two exceptions) the amount of collective legal knowledge possessed by those loudly and confidently expounding here could fit in a teaspoon with plenty of room to spare.
But then why should I expect any different? The same observation applies with respect to science.
“PLausibility is in the eye of the beholder. We’ve already seen that Mann’s contention Steyn should have known he had been explicitly “exonerated” by various panels is false, in I believe at last count, 5 separate instances. Mann’s case looks extremely weak now.”
True plausibility is in the eye of the beholder. However, it remains that the likelihood of Steyn being able to demonstrate the Mann’s suit was frivolous will be extremely difficult. keep in mind, you have two judges that agreed the defamation case should proceed, (granted one of the judges was a nut case).
Magma,
Are you the intellectual product of the CAGW Comprachicos?
It seems you were raised by them to be laughed at open independent venues.
John
I understand the Nobel prize cash component is about $1.2M. Mann can put that to use paying the judgement. Oh – wait – I guess not.
I manage a movie theater and I can assure you that the popcorn mean consumption maximum and minimum extents are directly paralel to movie goer attendance and screening of more or less popular movies impacted by both warm and pleasent weather and cold and inclemant weather , factoring in the popular use of VCR’s, cable access and now internet streaming , popcorn consumption has less monitoring exactitude thus, when plotted across a timeliune say since 1979 to 2008 we get a fairly robust retrospective data set which increases in probable error with advances in home viewing technologies. However by applying climate model algorythms we can adjust the data sets according to desired popcorn future consumption and presto we have a hockey stick! So, personally the last I knew , fraud is punishable by doing time in the state pen….
@ur momisugly streetcred, I totally agree,
And @ur momisuglycanman,, I did go and read one of your threads with “rsprung’s” dialogue, all I can add to that is that the unravelling of his attackers? That I have seen before.
I had a similar back and forth about 3 weeks ago and in the end the only answers I was given was that I was putting commas, periods, ??’s , etc. in the wrong places.in my writing during the week long “debate” regarding wind power. I was never once answered a single question that I asked regarding the government subsidies (themselves pay for), the locations and the opposition from people actually having to live near any turbines. The name calling and mudslinging was astounding!
Magma says: March 13, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Being rather new to this forum, I was under the impression that banal troll droppings long on insult but bereft of substantive rebuttal were not welcome here. Perhaps I was mistaken?
As Conrad Black will tell you, courts in the U.S. do not exist to determine impartial Common Law but to validate ideological preconceptions at odds with every principle Blackstone, Locke, Milton or Montaigne ever stated. If “no law” means anything some Seigneur chooses to address, why not glue Humpty Dumpty firmly to his wall and back away?
I don’t know about Russian or American cliches for this Mann vs Steyn but I know in Australia it would be something like ‘U f*** with me mate, and yous better have a bigger donger than me..” Aussies are not very delicate when it comes to language and when they are angry. And a bigger wallet too.All Mark has to do is get credible witnesses to come forward and point out ‘Mannies’ obvious mistakes and hypothesis, and query why he would make these mistakes. If lay persons can do it, then a good and credible scientist should be able to point out the obvious mistakes with his data collection and how a man or scientist of his standing could do this? Dendrochronology is used by archaeologists, and it is only reliable for that particular region. Usually the conditions that a particularly tree encountered during its life. Whereas the same species somewhere else in the world can grow a lot quicker or much slower. More rain, Mike tends to push tree growth upwards?? It can be used too to date wood panels. Near where I live in, one archaeologist noticed gold was absorbed by a tree. It is not a hard or a difficult scientific exercise. Usually it is used to date the age of a tree.
cwon14: A very small risk to Mann who plays the put-upon victim who is offended. Over years it will go away with minimal cost to Mann. If he gets nailed “they” will deify him. He’s a climate war hero in his own mind and that of the hate driven climate change community.
Maybe, but if it goes to jury trial, the jury will be composed of his civil peers (registered voters), no his self-selected friends and journal “peers”. To them he has a very privileged position as college professor and recipient of hard-to-get federal and state tax money. He can be presented as a government agent who abused his privilege to carry out a vendetta against a private citizen (at an institution with a documented history of negligent investigations into public complaints, no less.) No one will perceive him as a victim.
Magma: It’s pretty clear that (with one or two exceptions) the amount of collective legal knowledge possessed by those loudly and confidently expounding here could fit in a teaspoon with plenty of room to spare.
Maybe. Have you served on a jury? Been through the voir dire process? It can be a shock for a participant in a legal proceeding to discover who his or her peers actually are. People who actually pay taxes, for example, instead of “feeding at the public trough”.
Matthew R Marler says:
March 13, 2014 at 6:54 pm
‘People who actually pay taxes, for example, instead of “feeding at the public trough”.’
Imagine Steyn’s lawyers showing the jurors pictures of Mann jetting to all those exotic locations for climate boondoggles and posing with Ed Begley Jr while they’re at home burning their kids kindergarten pictures for warmth thanks to his cute little hockey schtick.
The warmer way:
Be wrong. Insult scientists, and everyone who catches it. Claim ‘it’s irresponsible’ for others to catch them being wrong. Declare they will NEVER admit they were wrong. End conversation with snide insult, at having been caught being wrong. Declare victory at having shut down discourse. Appeal to wide, low information voter base types with strangely low-brow, socially pathological behaviors – child like baiting, and insulting of others then feigning insult at being called what they in fact have been proven to be: anti scientific bumblers. “The Falwell Complex” where viciously insulting others then crying and acting hurt alternate. Try to invoke the hysterical, low rent character assassination that brings wide crowds and make them feel they’ve got an army at their back they can rely on, to shield themselves. Change the subject to anything so they can keep their job as a crowd gathering public policy wonk passing pseudo-science off as real.
Be wrong.
Again.
Insult scientists and all those who were right.
Again.
Claim ‘it’s irresponsible’ to catch them being wrong.
Again.
Declare they will NEVER admit they were wrong privately.
Again.
End the conversation with snide insult, at having been caught being wrong.
Again.
Declare victory having shut down discourse to the degree possible.
Again.
Appeal to wide, low information voter base types with strangely low-brow, socially pathological behavior: child like baiting, and insulting of others then feigning insult at being called what they in fact have been proven to be: anti scientific bumblers. “The Falwell Complex” where viciously insulting others then crying and acting hurt alternate.
Again.
Try to invoke the hysterical, low rent character assassination that brings wide crowds and make them feel they’ve got an army at their back they can rely on, to shield themselves.
Again.
Change the subject to anything so they can keep their job as a crowd gathering public policy wonk passing pseudo-science off as real.
Again.
jeff5778: “so if i were to say its my opinion that mark steyn is a child molesting paedophile”
The statement that Steyn quoted explicitly distinguished between Mann’s data “torture” and Sandusky’s “child molestation”, so your comment is beside the point. A point that every juror will recognize (perhaps in agreement, perhaps not) is that PSU’s “exoneration” of Mann (claimed by Mann) was worth no more than PSU’s “exoneration” of Sandusky (where a grand jury investigation was required in order to get to the truth.)
Mark Steyn has pulled a brilliant move. He has invoked “COMMON LAW.” How many attorneys (who are NOT really lawyers) are competent in common law? The answer is not many to none. All the fancy maneuvers, language, rules, procedures, etc. mean nothing in common law. Attorneys are useless in common law. For an example, observe why no foreclosures have occurred in New York State in the last several years.
Common law IS the law of this land, which means it is higher/superior to other ‘law’ (look it up). It’s relatively simple to explain: Do no verified HARM to another man and/or a man’s property. Those who cause damage to another man and/or a man’s property are wrong doers and are law breakers [NOTE: man is short for huMAN, huMANkind, MANkind, etc. Therefore, ‘man’ is gender neutral…].
For further information see Karl Lentz on YouTube
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJYFvskc1ps).
It is a general description of human beings and is not gender settled, and not generally used by archaeologists. Humanity, or humankind is now preferred when generalising. I don’t agree with some radical feminists that HISTORY should be changed to HERSTORY. Or gay rights terminology for legal reasons should by changed to ‘intersex’. People go over the top sometimes, what’s wrong with gay? It is not homophobic, like poof, dike or shirt lifter. It depends in which context it is being used. The mind boggles what ‘intersex’ is likely to produce in a person’s mind. ‘Sure I am inter sex’ LOL.
There must be many scientists and climatologists that don’t agree with Mann et al. And he risks giving science a bad name. Well he has certainly done that! Is this trail going to have a jury? And if so, who is going to vet them?