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.
Magma says:
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.
Magma, I have challenged you on the science. But you tucked tail and ran, vanishing in a cloud of ink. Or pixels. Whatever. You disappeared.
The point is this: any time you wish to discuss science, I am willing and available. So are plenty of others here. But it’s best to understand the Null Hypothesis, the Scientific Method, and the definition of scientific evidence before you peek above the parapet. You might get an education that you do not like.
Like all habitual liars, Mann will lie till the bitter end and beyond. All liars do this. They stall and stall-new poppycock excuses, more stalling, red-herring trails, more stalling, more lies, more excuses. Eventually the liar dies, so it does not matter. Classic case of a liar dying before exposure is J Edgar Hoover-a rotten egg if there ever was. If the liar gets their actual goal , then the old “The victor will never be asked if he lied” applies. The stakes of the global warming scam are world domination-total world domination, largely on the back of the persistent lie of global warming. IPCC head, Christiana Figueres on January 15th in an interview with the Guardian stated-Democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China is the best model. All rather interesting that the UN did not make a comment-they obviously approve. The UN showing its hand? Looks like the global warming scare was all about creating world totalitarianism. Nice of them to tell us. On another note, any of us who have had the derogatory term “denier” used against us should be able to sue for defamation. Likewise, those who speak out against Islamization being branded “racist” also have a case, as Islam means submission to Allah and the ways of the Qur’an. It is not a race, it is a doctrine.
I predict that the Jerry Sandusky of climate science will lose this lawsuit.
The body of Mark Steyn’s work involves satire and comedy. It is not meant
to be taken seriously. Mann made the biggest mistake of his life in filing the
suit in the first place.
Carlos Mencia and other comics called Michael Jackson a child molester. They
got away with it because they were comedians. You cannot sue a comedian or a
satirist.
It occurred to me that [trimmed]… 😉
Well Streetcred, what do we do with troll droppings. Put them in the garden to fertilize our plants.
You can’t really ban people for disagreeing with us. It just shows up their ignorance not ours.
====================================================================
Now, now, Magma. You should know by now that when it comes to Mannish “Climate Science” that observations don’t matter.
I am a PSU meteo grad from 1978. Please remember that Dr Mann, for better or for worse is not a product of PSU meteorology, of which I love. In the end I fear that if this goes the distance, the harm to PSU meteorology dept could be devastating. While I am by no means a pillar of the alumni base, the great people that built this department in its heyday in the 60s and 70s when it graduated 2/3rds of the nations meteorology are the people I feel worse for. When I was in school, the staff was like the who’s who of meteorology, and I cherish my degree from that era
Joseph, sadly, universities change, and unfortunately open debate that was part of independent scholarly thinking to argue a point or academic hypothesis, seems to have disappeared. If you point out some flaw or not taking account of variables into an academic’s data collection, you are either failed or not listened too. Alternative arguments are therefore frowned on. I was labelled a climate change denier, holocaust denier, even a JFK assassination denier by a senior lecturer at UNE (NSW) at a public meeting, but my name was not exactly mentioned, but I knew it meant me. At least one of the public there mentioned that alternative research makes people read about history, and the holocaust comment was unwarranted. The university would not take on my complaint as I was a student of history in the same department, a graduate mind you. I got no sympathy at all and couldn’t find a supervisor to cover the same subject matter. They don’t like one of their own being found deficient at all in their academic research or argument, particularly if that university received a grant to pursue a field of research. The DVD that I also was part of, is still to be released, and I wonder if an injunction has been placed on it being released?
That’s not what Steyn’s after. He’s after disclosure of Mann’s data and emails.
I wish I could be optimistic. But Steyn’s new motion sounds too much like the desperate things copyright trolls do just before the judge whacks them upside the head with a clue-by-four.
@bushbunny and Joe Bastardi –
As a reformed academic myself (Ph.D., History, UC Santa Barbara, 1970) who spent three years in the snakepit before deciding I needed to do something else – the process of erosion of integrity and discipline was already well under way when I was teaching in the early 1970s. At least at the institutions where I went to school and taught (U of Utah and University of Wisconsin-Parkside), loony leftism was already in full swing. This descent of academia into the river Styx is nothing new.
Mann is a public policy advocate and self advertized author, lecturer, and activist blogger.
His chance of winning is zero.
Al one advantage of not having a lawyer is procedure changes. Now all a person has to do is reply in common English. It is quite simple really to reply to those legal statements. “I deny all the claims in X’s petition.” The fancy verbage is not needed. I fired my last lawyer, got what I expected pretty much. Best part was when the opposing attorney objected to my “7 page” motion for discovery calling it frivolous. He did not realize I practically copied his word for word. I pointed out he either filed a frivolous motion or was now lying both of which are violations of bar rules. I enjoyed that part. One of my biggest complaints is if you represent yourself you can’t sue for your own time. Only the nobilities, er I mean lawyers, time is considered worth something.
bushbunny said:
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
—————————————————————————–
bushbunny, please stop pretending that you speak on behalf of all Australians – or indeed any Aussie other than yourself.
Since I don’t have a “donger”, presumably I’m not an Australian, to take one instance in your post.
Dial it down, please, from a fellow Aussie who doesn’t claim to speak for anyone else.
Thanks.
pokerguy on March 13, 2014 at 12:36 pm
“That said, I do not believe this case will proceed to the end. Mann will be looking for a way out. Bullies are always cowards.”
I knew Mann back in grad school. If he hasn’t changed, he’s not scared nor will he back down. He thinks he’s right and that he’ll win. He always thought he was right about everything and loved to get into arguments all the time. He also believed in various conspiracies.
Don’t waste your time on Magma folks. He’s baiting you. He’s a troll. I doubt he’s an expert on both science and the law, so how could he know that these commentors are lacking skill in both? Real scientists and real lawyers comment here, as well as a great diversity of other backgrounds.
Sweeping generalizations from Magma is for effect only.
High Treason on March 13, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Like all habitual liars, Mann will lie till the bitter end and beyond. All liars do this. “..
Seriously I don’t think he’s a liar per se. He really does believe his own nonsense and will do whatever he needs to protect his belief. He is apt to believe in conspiracies and that he’s being persecuted.
When he heard about Global Warming early in grad school he switched from studying theoretical nuclear physics to climate over night: switched from the physics department to the geology department. The climate change “news” hit him like people that accept Jesus are “born again”. Fanatical devotion over night. And there was no debating him even back then in 1990 that global warming might not be true. He simply would not have an open mind about it and set out to prove that global warming was true.
Steyn is raising the stakes by causing Mann and his backers additional legal fees and including causes of action that will have to be briefed and argured and acted on at great cost. Particularly claims related to common law actions in Tort whcih is an ever expanding area of the law. In addtion, Steyn is throwing in addtional causes of action to permit future amendments of his compliant and potential damages prior to getting to the final issues to be litigated. Steyn wants the broadest possible discovery reach if his claims survive.
“After the Virginia case I doubt this will lead to full data disclosure of Mann, therefore little will be won against junk science advocates.”
If the judge subpoenas Mann’s emails and scientific data and Mann does not comply I think Mann is in danger of losing the case. His lawyers only recourse is to appeal the decision higher up the food chain. And since this is a civil suit that Mann started, he may end up the loser. This is exactly not what Mann doesn’t need right now.
David L. [Magma is] baiting you.
There, at least, you’re correct. At any rate, within a year or so it should become clear whose predictions prove correct on Mann v. Steyn (Simberg, NRO and CEI), and sooner than that in regard to Steyn’s motions.
The National Review is probably weighing its options with respect to a retraction, apology and partial cost settlement. Which would leave Steyn hanging out to dry, but then the parties seem to have cut their ties already.
Steyn is in effect claiming barratry, vide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)
Relevant:
http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1343103310023_8884676.png
Magma says:
March 14, 2014 at 9:06 am
David L. [Magma is] baiting you.
There, at least, you’re correct. At any rate, within a year or so it should become clear whose predictions prove correct on Mann v. Steyn (Simberg, NRO and CEI), and sooner than that in regard to Steyn’s motions.
The National Review is probably weighing its options with respect to a retraction, apology and partial cost settlement. Which would leave Steyn hanging out to dry, but then the parties seem to have cut their ties already.
—————————-
True enough. I have no idea how it will turn out, but I’m certainly curious to find out!!!
Were do I buy puck corn?
The changed amount isn’t all that important. What is important is tha this is a restatement of the damages claim in a form which is more likely to get traction with the court. Claiming legal costs as damages, which is what Steyn initially did was very unlikely to work. In most US jurisdictions legal costs are specifically excluded from being damages so the court would probably have just crossed them out. Now Steyn is asking for “punitive damages” instead, which means the court will at least listen to his argument before crossing them out. And in addition he asks for an award for legal costs. That is the proper way to do it. An award of legal costs is a separate thing from damages. It is very hard to get and requires a special argument.