Steyn discovers the 'essence of Mann': Eau de weasel

Well, we knew it would happen, it was just a matter of when. Dr. Michael Mann is trying to weasel out of discovery in the Mann-Steyn Steamroller case.

Steyn reports on the latest: ==========================================================

You can read the whole thing here. But the takeaway is that, apparently, it’s all my fault:

On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff renewed his discovery requests against National Review. National Review responded by e-mail on February 7, reminding Plaintiff’s counsel that this Court had already ruled that discovery should be stayed until its Anti-SLAPP motion could be finally resolved in the Court of Appeals. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that while he did not agree with National Review’s position, he would not press the issue of discovery for the time being. A few weeks later, however, on March 6, Plaintiff’s counsel called National Review’s counsel to renew his discovery requests yet again. Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he felt obliged to renew discovery because National Review’s co-defendant, Mark Steyn, had decided not to pursue an appeal, and had instead indicated his desire to proceed with discovery against Plaintiff. Thus, according to Plaintiff’s counsel, it would be impracticable to proceed with discovery between himself and Steyn without the involvement of the other co-Defendants.

Putting aside the bizarre posture of National Review, now standing athwart the DC court calendar yelling “Stop!”, we should not overlook the real significance of this document. Ever since this wretched case began a year-and-a-half ago, those who know Dr Mann have been saying that he would obstruct discovery, as he’s currently doing in court in Vancouver and Virginia. Today’s filing marks the first confirmation that such is the case.

What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him? There are four defendants, so Mann has served four separate requests for discovery. I’ve returned mine; National Review, CEI and Rand Simberg are sitting on theirs. The four defendants will in turn submit, collectively, four requests for discovery upon Dr Mann. Why is responding to mine ahead of NR’s any more “impracticable” than me responding to his ahead of NR’s response? What’s so difficult about that? Where, indeed, is there even a smidgeonette of “impracticability”?

There are four defendants and one plaintiff. Of the five of us, I seem to be the only one anxious to exercise his right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, NR’s pleadings make a basic error:

If National Review’s appeal succeeds, then the claims against Steyn will almost certainly need to be dismissed as well, thus vitiating the need for any discovery at all.

Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.

=======================================================

More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6184/oh-wont-you-stay-ay-ay-just-a-little-bit-longer

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I’ve lost a lot of respect for NR, owing to their gutlessness in fighting this case.

milodonharlani

Didn’t Mann just recently spew about how much he welcomed the discovery process?

Ashby Manson

He’s spent years in court dodging discovery. That’s not going to change. I say: aggressively pursue discovery!

deadrock

Time to Mann-up Michael !!!!! Mark has shown you his……..time for you to show yours!

pokerguy

“Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.”
Mark Steyn is the closest thing I’ve had to a hero since i was a kid..
We’ve been waiting for you Mr. Steyn and the community of proud skeptics will I have no doubt, support you generously all the way to the finish line.
Nail that sniveling coward to the wall. (figuratively speaking of course).

Carlyle

Fantastic. Mann has an article in Scientific American at present. ‘Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036 ‘ I have been a sceptical commenter at SCIAM for years & have copped heaps of abuse from others for holding sceptical views on many of their articles. SCIAM put their terms for comments at the end of the article re abuse etc. I pointed out the numerous cases of abuse by AGW users that followed & asked if the rules only applied to sceptics. My account was cancelled. I have been banned. They have to protect the Mann.

Gunga Din

The ball may be in Mann’s court but we know who really has them!
Sic ’em!

“He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.”
Well, there was your first error: Taking Mann at his word.

P. Berkin

Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
(Please excuse my poor grasp of legal terminology, I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.)

DesertYote

Itachi no saigoppe!

Bryan A

john miller

2036.
Hahahahahaahahahahahaha

David L.

pokerguy on March 20, 2014 at 1:07 pm
..,”Mark Steyn is the closest thing I’ve had to a hero since i was a kid..”.,,
He really is, isn’t he!

Gunga Din

P. Berkin says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
(Please excuse my poor grasp of legal terminology, I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.)

==============================================================
The Mann-up-ometer?

According to the court site, on March 19, they received
“National Review’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal Filed. Submitted 03/19/2014 17:58. ajm”. Steyn has it here. It seems plaintiff is opposing this.

Taphonomic

P. Berkin says:
“Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
(Please excuse my poor grasp of legal terminology, I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.)”
I suggest “DiscoveryEvadery counter” But two may be needed, one for Steyn and one for Tim Ball.

Bart

P. Berkin says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
“…I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.”
The lapse rate? Or, maybe combine the days lapsed since Mann has fought discovery in any of his numerous legal proceedings, so that it takes off like a well known item of sporting equipment as the new cases pile up 😉

Scientific American is carrying Mann’s water. In the comments below that article, name-calling against skeptics is the norm. It is condoned and encouraged. But if a skeptic simply points out some scientific facts, SciAm deletes the comment.
I posted the following comment, verbatim. I quicky received an email from the SciAm “Webmaster” telling me that I had engaged in “name-calling”, and that I am permanently banned from ever commenting there again.
Here is what I wrote, with no changes:

The following are a few scientific facts, and comments regarding scientific evidence [please note that scientific “evidence” has a specific meaning. ‘Evidence’ means raw data, and verifiable empirical {real world} observations. Peer reviewed papers, IPCC reports, and computer climate models are not scientific evidence. Rather, they are assertions.] :
Global warming STOPPED, 17+ years ago. [We cannot call it a “pause”, unless it resumes.] No computer climate model was able to predict that event. They were ALL wrong.
Further, it is a scientific fact that the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that the climate parameters being observed now [temperatures, extreme weather events, etc.], have ALL been exceeded in the past — when CO2 [“carbon”] was lower.
Current global temperatures have been exceeded in the past by a large degree. Therefore, nothing currently being observed is either unusual, or unprecedented. The fact is that we are currently living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no evidence that global temperatures are rising, as was incessantly predicted for many years — until it didn’t happen. Global warming has stopped. That is a fact that even NASA/GISS acknowledges.
Next, to put the “carbon” scare into perspective: CO2 has increased from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half.
The recent rise in global temperatures, beginning around 1980 and ending around 1997, was only temporarily coincidental with the continuing, steady rise in CO2 — and the only verifiable correlation shows that ∆CO2 is CAUSED by ∆T; not vice-versa. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming.
CO2 is a very tiny trace gas, currently just 0.000397 of the atmosphere, but it is essential to all life on earth. At current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better. There is no scientific evidence proving that CO2 is anything but a completely harmless trace gas, which is very beneficial to the biosphere.
CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, when life on earth flourished. The current rise is of no concern. Certainly some of the rise is due to human activity. However, if CO2 was the cause of any measurable global warming, then the recent large percentage rise would have forced temperatures up sharply. But as we know, global T stopped rising many years ago.
Finally, the unspoken agenda is to pass a huge new carbon tax. That is the motive behind the “carbon” scare. As if hard-bitten taxpayers are not paying enough already.

Was I calling names? Anyone reading the other comments there can see their repeated and vicious use of the pejoratives “denialist”, “deniers”, etc. I even wrote to SciAm, asking them to delete those comments for incessant name-calling, which is against their written policy.
No dice. I am banned. They are not. The pro-Mann crowd gets to insult. They are pulling out all the stops to support Michael Mann, no?

Theo Goodwin

David L. says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:12 pm
“pokerguy on March 20, 2014 at 1:07 pm
..,”Mark Steyn is the closest thing I’ve had to a hero since i was a kid..”.,,
He really is, isn’t he!”
As I read the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, Steyn shows us what the Framers had in mind when they created the documents.

Peter Whale

Mannifest. Date comes to mind

Gunga Din

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/steyn-discovers-the-essence-of-mann-eau-de-weasel/#comment-1595132
=========================================================
This comment is still in moderation. I can’t figure out why.

littlepeaks

Isn’t it amazing how slowly court cases proceed?

bones

Gutless or not, it makes sense for NR to wait and see if it prevails under Anti-SLAPP. That would end their involvement without further cost. If that cuts the ground out from under Mann’s case, It would leave da Mann with a huge problem of what to do about Steyn’s countersuit.

Many libertarian-minded observers have been critical of the quality of arguments and positions put forth by NR, and they are not known for being staunch defenders of liberty.
There are many theories regarding NR, and quite a few involve the Koch connection. I for one am not surprised at all that they are not defending Steyn and his freedom of speech more vigorously. If they were not co-defendants, I suspect they would be more than happy to let him twist in the wind without a word in his defense.
Murray Rothbard tells the tale of how it all began. Well worth a read.
http://mises.org/daily/2759

Mann yells that Steyn is defaming his science work, you know, the science work which is the stuff Mann is unwilling to show in court (discovery).
Mann is simple minded, he just can’t or won’t ‘get it’.
Maybe Scott Mandia of the so-called ‘Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’ can take him into a corner somewhere and draw crayon pictures to help Mann ‘get it’.
John

You sue four defendants – you open yourself up to fighting on four fronts. His choice. For a guy with a fool for a lawyer (at least according to so warmist bloggers like Appell and Bickmore) Steyn is not doing too badly…

mpaul

A few years ago there was a case SCO v IBM. SCO sued IBM over an intellectual property issue related to the Unix patents which SCO asserted they owned and to which IBM, they asserted, infringed. SCO then went on the sue Red Hat, Novell, DamlerChrysler, and Autozone. SCO masterfully worked each of the litigants off each other — doing things like filing a motion to stay the one pending the resolution of the other and then filing a motion to stay the other pending the resolution of the one! The litigation went on for 7 years. Theoretically, if Mann’s objective is to visit economic hardship of the defendants, then perusing a SCO-like strategy would be the way to do it.
But I happen to like Steyn’s bat sh*t crazy strategy: keep you costs low, take some early losses and make it up on appeal, and appeal, and appeal. Its legal rope-a-dope that I suspect Mann’s team was not prepared for. All the while, Steyn seems to be enjoying himself.

ttfn

P. Berkin says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
+++
better make it a 32 bit counter

papiertigre

@ dbstealey says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Typing all that out to post at SciAm, you must be a glutton for punishment.
Use to be SciAm’s blogs were modded on an individual basis, that is to say, the author of the post you were commenting on would be the guy deciding what was worthy, if mods were used at all.
I think it was about 2008 when SciAm changed up their system, so it could be easily censored by overlord, to match the one editor’s policy position.

stan stendera

I have sent Mr. Steyn a check for $100 , USA, for a gift certificate I will never cash unless Mr. Steyn is PAID a hugh settlement from Mickey Mouse Mann. I do not usually contribute to this type of thing, but I urge everyone reading these words to join me with whatever you can afford.

As should be clear to everyone by now, there is nothing “scientific” about Sci-Am, as it is now nothing but a political mouthpiece for a currently fashionable cult. Those of us who remember when it was worthwhile can lament the passing of what was once a great name, while eagerly anticipating its demise.
Which won’t be long – that’s a big reason for the scare-mongering. They’ve painted themselves into a corner by flogging a political horse in order to sell magazines. When the political movement falls apart, so will that magazine. I imagine it will continue as some vanity blog, but that will be about it.
I doubt there are many subscriptions left among readers here, but if there are any, it is long past time to cancel them. Sci-Am is dead, and there is nothing to be gained by propping up (or for that matter, trying to talk to) a rotting corpse.

Alex

Really, that’s the strategy? Make it up on appeal? I really think that he KNOWS Mann cannot afford to actually go into discovery and he’s called his bluff. He won’t have to make it up on appeal if his discovery finds enough dirt vindicate him. It’s at LEAST possible, no? After all, why has Mann avoided discovery and scrutiny for so long and so hard?
Poker, it’s not just a card game, folks. Ask Putin!
AAA

Harry Passfield

dbstealey: Thank you for your comment – the one that got you banned from SciAm. It was very good. I went to the SciAm article by Mann and read the comments. The laugh – actually, a guffaw – is that many of the strident alarmist/Mann supporters are responding to comments that have obviously been removed. So, in the favourite words of the warmistas, they are out of context! (Most of the responses seem to be bile-filled rants against Hschtick). So bloody funny.

This case is all about discovery….

bobbyv

Those suffering from climate hubris may end up being surprised by Steyn.

Alan Esworthy

Bart says (March 20, 2014 at 2:19 pm)

P. Berkin says (March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm)

“…I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.”

The lapse rate?

Would that be the environmentalist lapse rate? (-:

Evan Jones

He’s spent years in court dodging discovery. That’s not going to change. I say: aggressively pursue discovery!
The way I heard it, in 2005 he coughed up to Mac (essentially) the code for MBH98 — under threat of congressional subpoena. And that’s when his troubles began.
And now, nine long years later, he is running out of dodges. But he is too far out on a limb to get back. I accept his sincerity (though not much else). And I think he really believes those things he believes. He turned out to be the wrong Mann in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel kind of sorry for the guy.

Crispin in Waterloo

P. Berkin says:
>Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?
I Agree with Bart about the name of the indicator: Lapse Rate (like a bank rate – it goes up)
Lapse Rate is a climate term.
The window for proof CO2-AGW has lapsed.
The rate of warming has lapsed.
The time for proving the models correct has lapsed.
The number of things that have lapsed is increasing at a high rate.
The number of days that will elapse stalling ‘discovery’ may set a new record. We should keep an eye on it.
I suspect the counter-suit-ee will not encounter the same dawdling from the plaintiff, Steyn who seems really anxious to give him that for which he so stridently asked.

“I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial.”
No, you won’t, Steyn. Sadly, your countersuit has no standing and will certainly be dismissed, as PopeHat and other conservative legal bloggers have tried to warn you.

george e. conant

dbstealey, another appreciation here! Like I said in another thread, the problem with CAGW sceptics is that they are a well informed group of people who study the facts and argue their possition tenaciously. I don’t remember who actually said that but when I read it I was floored. You have quite nicely wrapped up the issue in a tidy comment. No wonder Sci Am bumped your comment. As for the meter for Mannitus, perhaps the “Mann O Man O Meter”?? measured in singular popped corn kernels per day …..

Magma

Furthermore, NR’s pleadings make a basic error:
“If National Review’s appeal succeeds, then the claims against Steyn will almost certainly need to be dismissed as well, thus vitiating the need for any discovery at all.”
Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial.

So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers? And if (or more likely, when) his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs, what is his fallback position? Another attack on the case judge?

” wws says:March 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I’ve lost a lot of respect for NR, owing to their gutlessness in fighting this case.”
What “gutlessness” would that be, exactly? They’re using a very well-regarded law firm with expertise in this field, and they’re continuing the fight — they’re just not blowing their horn about it the way Steyn is. And unlike Steyn, they actually are willing to recognize what they can and cannot do in the current American legal system.
Read PopeHat’s “Fool for a Client” post from last week and you’ll realize Steyn, not NR, is the one you should be losing respect for.

“So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers? And if (or more likely, when) his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs, what is his fallback position? Another attack on the case judge?”
Exactly right, Magma. Steyn’s grandstanding and arrogance are actually endangering the very cause he claims to be fighting for.

Sleepalot

If Mann finds discovery to be “impractical”, then he should pay Steyn his $30 million.

Magma says:
So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers?
You sound worried.
[But Steyn doesn’t seem worried…]

James the Elder

Sorry, but I lost it at NR’s legal team.

ttfn

Rob Hobart says:
March 20, 2014 at 3:57 pm
“No, you won’t, Steyn. Sadly, your countersuit has no standing and will certainly be dismissed, as PopeHat and other conservative legal bloggers have tried to warn you.”
Has the judge ruled on that already? I’m surprised. doesn’t seem like 12 years have elapsed.

Jim Bo

Magma says: March 20, 2014 at 3:59 pm

…what is his fallback position?

Likely reams of additional material with which to ridicule mercilessly Mann’s non-compliance with discovery, already in progress. That’ll do nicely until a trial date, probably several years hence.

To Rob Hobart, who wrote:”when his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs,”
You are assuming that this is an English case. Nobody gets awarded costs in the US system (with a couple extremely rare exceptions,usually involving criminal negligence) It’s probably the greatest weakness in the US system, but it makes filing lawsuits in the US virtually risk-free. Even if they’re baseless, the object of your suit still has to pay a lot of money just to deal with the nonsense. That’s what Mann has been doing, and so Steyn is just returning the favor.
(And even if the complaint is dismissed, you can appeal the dismissal, and so on, and so forth, and keep the aggravation going for years. It’s called “lawfare”.)

Jim Bo

P. Berkin says: March 20, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?

A stellar idea…but probably more appropriate for SteynOnline. Still, I wouldn’t be adverse to seeing one here in the sidebar.