![Delayed[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/delayed1.png?resize=279%2C282)
If you ever needed an example of just how one-sided Michael Mann is, here’s an example of how this delicate scientific flower can’t handle discovery.
Mark Steyn writes:
Breaking as-it-happens news about a trial that isn’t happening any day soon, or any half-decade soon. Previously on Mann vs Steyn et al, National Review had filed a motion asking for yet another stay in discovery pending the appeals court’s ruling on their appeal – or, indeed, the appeals court’s ruling on whether they’re allowed to appeal. Whatever. I’m bored by all this procedural flimflam and am anxious to proceed with discovery and go to trial, as I could have done by now in almost any functioning jurisdiction.
So I filed an objection. Michael Mann eventually filed an objection, too. He also wants to proceed with discovery but only against me, not against him. A voyage of one-way discovery.
Anyway, yesterday Judge Weisberg announced his decision:
Accordingly, it is this 11th day of April, 2014,
ORDERED that the motion of Defendant National Review, Inc. for a Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal be, and it hereby is, granted; and all proceedings in this case are stayed pending the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on the Defendants’ interlocutory appeals.
So we’re on hold for a while, again. I intend to use this period for trial preparation, including my investigation of Mann and my counterclaims against him. I’ve been immensely touched by the generosity of readers who understand how costly in time and money a campaign of this nature can be, and have supported the Steyn store to a degree I never expected.
Nevertheless, I explained in my objection why I was anxious to get on with it:
3. The charge that a man is a defamer is a serious one and profoundly damaging. With criminal charges, this nation provides a constitutional right to a speedy trial. It offers no such protections in civil court, even though to be accused as a defamer is certainly as damaging to one’s reputation and honor as all but the most serious criminal charges. For an independent writer such as Defendant Steyn, this is especially so: His livelihood depends entirely on his reputation, and as long as this charge stains his character without being answered he is being damaged. As the accused, he asserts his right to confront his accuser in open court in a timely manner.
4. Likewise, the Plaintiff is owed the courtesy of being received straightway without delay. As this Court noted in its Order of January 22nd, the allegedly defamatory statements “go to the heart of scientific integrity”, and thus to the heart of the Plaintiff’s character. If the Court truly believes that, then Dr Mann is entitled to a timely trial that settles the truth of the matter wheresoever it be.
Judge Weisberg acknowledged the unfairness of this in his ruling:
Read the entire piece here, including some frustration by the judge in the case: http://www.steynonline.com/6260/irony-alert
===========================================================
This demonstration of Dr. Mann’s principles, where he doesn’t want to yield to discovery, but let’s go ahead with discovery on Steyn, isn’t just irony, it’s über irony.
What a cowardly Mann. Eventually, this game of musical chairs will stop, and it is pretty clear who’s going to be without one and left holding a broken hockey stick.
You’d almost think that The Mann had something to hide…
For a guy that loves to threaten others with it , it he sure does has much as he can to avoid any court time .
In the end its likley Mann will back down , if sometime disgracefully, for all it comes across as a poor scientists his smart enough to know know that in a court he will not be able to load the basis in his favour and get by on BS has his is normal pratice.
The one hope is that his massive ego will get the better of him , and its there he needs a ‘push ‘ , we should actual encourage Mann all we can. For the day cannot come soon enough that his ‘team ‘ throw him under the bus to save themselves and that they most certainly will do.
Michael Mann, Trenberth, etc. are all cowards.
Further, what has been their contribution to science? The hockey stick, hide the decline and the missing heat hiding in the deep ocean! They call this science?
No wonder they can only pretend to be Nobel Laureates since they will never be real ones!
What really irks me is why no one amongst his so called peers says:
“Come on Mike, you started this mess and it is starting to reflect badly on the rest of us.
So just show them what they want to see, surely there is no reason to hide anything, um…….is there?”
Almost unnoticed and unremarked upon in what has surely become my prime source for judicial entertainment is the departure of Bernard “Bernie” Grimm as one of Mann’s representative consigliere (who’s visage would be recognized by most as the curmudgeonly “defense perspective” talking head on one of the cable news channels…CNN perhaps?).
While the warmist’s delight in the various comings and goings of Steyn consigliere produced a tsunami of pseudo-informed prattle as to the dire consequence of his perceived consigliere instability, nary a word to be found as to whys and wherefores of Grimm’s exit stage left.
David Appell? Popehat? You sleeping with the fishes on this development? Has Grimm seen the handwriting on the wall?
I don’t think it really matters that “they are not Nobel Laureates”.
A Nobel Prize no longer means anything, because when the committee that awards them started handing them out to obvious fools like Gore, Obama, and Krugman, all they accomplished was to completely discredit themselves and their awards.
Sooner or later the King of Sweden will figure that out, too, and resign rather than be made a fool of any longer.
As I understand it Mann has refused to follow the discovery rules in the British Columbia Supreme Court for over three years in his I’ll founded litigation against Dr. Tim Ball.
Mann pretty much defines SLAPP.
Just for the record (and for anyone interested enough to weigh into that wasteland of misinformation), the Wikipedia “Defamation lawsuit” section is laughingly erroneous and out of date.
Does anybody know how long he delayed when he produced the documents for all those investigations that cleared him?
(Anybody have a couple of sarc tags I can borrow?)
Servitude is a bitch. : )
PSU’s Michael E. Mann, that giant among researchers subserviently producing non-science research that is encouraged by some AGW ‘exaggerationists’ who guide the IPCC’s assessment process, delays legal proceedings by what means ($)?
Mann can delay via funds from the Scott Mandia inspired ‘Climate Science Legal Defense Fund’.
What is Mandia’s purpose?
To serve Mann’s kind.
John
There will be no hiding the great Mann’s final decline. He’s pulled out his full bag of Tricks, but soon he will realize this is no pushover Nature journal he’s dealing with. A propos of that, I wonder what the chances are of some his papers being retracted after the case. Com’on buy a book and support your own freedom of speech.
“..like syphilis in that song from Candide.” -Mark Steyn talking about the spread of misinformation by the Warmists. hee hee
‘ ConfusedPhoton says:
April 12, 2014 at 9:51 am’
What does ‘hide the decline’ actually mean?
Gore and Obama actually got the Nobel Peace Price from the Norwegian Parliament. The Peace Price, unlike the other Nobel prices, is awarded by the Norwegian Parliament and not by the Swedish Academy. Thus, no involvment of the Swedish king in the ceremony. Nor is the Norwegian king involved, the Peace Price (including ceremonies) is handled by the (Peace Price) Nobel Committee, appointed by our parliament.
These nationalistic comments do not imply that I applaud the choice of IPCC/Gore for the Nobel Peace Price.
He thinks if he delays long enough, the globe will start warming again.
I wonder if Mann realizes the new situation. We’ll see how loyal his friends (and financiers) are when this gets expensive and the realization hits that he could lose big. It’s fun when the opponents roll over. We’re damned lucky to have courageous souls like Tim Ball and Mark Steyn who refuse to back down from this soulless bully–support them with everything you have.
There will be no hiding Mann’s decline.
======================================================================
I’m sure someone here can give you a detailed answer. Here’s elmer’s more fun answer.
PS Mann sued over this.
Piltdown Mann runs!
Wish Mann would just get on with it; I’m on my fourteenth box of popcorn, and getting restless.
Mann reminds me of the definition of chutzpah:
A young man, convicted of murdering his parents, appeals to the judge at the sentencing:
“Have mercy on me, judge, I’m an orphan.”
Delay is the Mainstay of Defense at Law.
While justice delayed may be justice denied, there are dozens – hundreds – of cunning and nominally legitimate ways to stretch out even the simplest matter, an – eviction for example. And, with a complicated enough case, any defense lawyer worth the name rests easy in the knowledge that most plaintiffs will probably in time run through their anger, energy, patience, money, or all four. Then the guileless victim, surrendering to boredom or the balance sheet, will turn to getting on with his, her or its life and go away . . . Game to Defendant.
Generally, this is never revealed in law school but is a first lesson of practice. I can only send Mark Steyn my best wishes and encourage his persistence.
Tally ho!
Let’s start a gentle-person’s betting pool on this affair:
+ what will the increase/decrease in global temperature from the time of Mann’s first filing to the day of the trial;
+ what will be the change in sea levels for the same period
+ what will be the PPM of CO2 for the same period.
Perhaps someone (our host?) can come up with measurement standards by which these can be judged.
This offers an opportunity for anyone taking any position on climate change to weigh in on something that can be empirically tested.
When Mann sued elmer, what was his basis? Did he claim to be a public figure who’s image was being used without his permission or anything like that?
Tom,
Quite right…wonderfully, Mann is the plaintiff and, in time, his failure to produce will lead to Motions to Dismiss. Three years is a long time to dodge Discovery and most Canadian judges will not look kindly on a plaintiff who seems to be abusing the processes of the Court.
Do read Steyn’s piece. The man is a brilliant story teller (not “storyteller”), and it is shame he is being distracted by these circumstances from his craft.
Regarding story tellers… my own illusions about the Nobel Prize came to an abrupt end when Márquez won the 1982 Literature Prize. Because before I read Márquez, I had read most of Faulkner, and so I found it curious and disconcerting that the Academy in 1982 seemed not the least familiar with the work of the recipent of its 1949 Prize.
Steyn’s countersuit is not so easily dismissed by Mann. And now he has good semi pro bono counsel to persue it. National Review needs to get out of the way, but cannot because Mann has a better Cause of action against them than against Steyn. It will take a while, but countersuit discovery will eventually come.
This ONLY about discovery. ONLY!
Then will come the fruits of knowing.
DAMAGES.
Michael Mann – the – liar’s Nature trick will be made into a lens to scrutinize his non-Nobel Prize.
In the above linked article from Steyn I read about the strange case of M Larry Lawrence. Basically he was the United States Ambassador to Switzerland and died in 1996.
He claimed to have been injured on the SS Horace Bushenell after it got torpedoed off the coast of Murmansk in 1945. He claimed he went to the University of Arizona, claimed to have been on the Nobel Peace Prize Nominating Commission. After his death he was buried in Arlington as he was praised a a hero. Later his body was exhumed and re-buried in San Diego because ALL his above claims were a pack of utter lies. Steyn used the story to show how so many have been duped into believing that Mann had been investigated blah blah number of times.
If Larry Lawrence could fool an entire nation for so many years imagine what Climate scientists could and have achieved?
For those interested “Nature” 20th March has article about “retraction of papers”.
Some of Mann’s papers fall nicely into the category “partial retraction” – “Figure or table based on corrupt data/Some data in appropriately analysed”.
Maybe I’m being generous?!
I have said from the beginning that Mann would eventually fold up at the prospect of discovery. He will try and try to avoid it without dropping his suit, but in the end he will be forced to allow discovery or take his ball and go home.
All, please stop making fun of these people for not being Nobel recipients. The Nobel committee is likely to take notice and award them one of their now meaningless designations just to tweak us deniers.
Is anyone else reminded of Leon Uris’s “QB VII”?
I read a short OT claim a few days ago here that Mann’s lawyer(s) had bowed out. Anything to that?
I can’t see Mann allowing discovery – it just won’t wash with his bluster and presentation. I just hope the courts can push this asap and avoid this infernal delay!
‘ ConfusedPhoton says:
April 12, 2014 at 9:51 am’
What does ‘hide the decline’ actually mean?
Hide the decline is a reference to one of the climategate emails. It started with a temperature reconstruction from tree ring data. The temperature reconstruction gave the temperature profile that they desired from 1000 AD until 1960. After 1960 their proxy suddenly implied that the earths temperature suddenly dropped instead of rising like a hockeystick. So instead of this casting doubt on the entire reliability of using tree ring data as a proxy (since the best temperature data refutes the tree rings utterly), they simply snipped the post 1960 data and pasted the instrumentation record on top of it implying that the tree rings accurately followed measured temperature. This was refered to in the climate gate emals as “Mikes nature trick” to hide the decline.
Jimbo says:
April 12, 2014 at 1:30 pm
“If Larry Lawrence could fool an entire nation for so many years imagine what Climate scientists could and have achieved?”
Don’t forget Obama.
Gentlemen, Mann is not in charge of the strategy of his case. His lawyer is. His lawyer will delay as long as he can. That is because he does not have to decide the next step. When they will go to trial, the next phase of delaying will start. Everybody will be short of popcorn.
“blackadderthe4th says:
April 12, 2014 at 11:00 am” …..
Dear All,
Please ignore BA4. If everyone doesn’t know already, BA4 is a warmist wally who regularly posts comments at Jo Nova’s blog. His ‘question’ about ‘Hide The Decline’ is just an attempt to begin one of his warmist diatribes.
Over at Jo Nova’s place he makes comments that he believes to be witty/perceptive and seems convinced that what he has to say has the ability to cut any deni*r down to size. In reality his warm-mongering statements make him look a complete fool. A lot of the sceptical commenters at Jo Nova refer to him as ‘Slackbladder’.
rogerknights says: April 12, 2014 at 2:25 pm
See above. I’m still looking, but I’ve seen no commentary as of yet.
BAthe4th is a paid troll. Joanne Nova bounced him due to his refusal to address topics with any facts. He tries to sidetrack the discussion, or starts spitting out insults when he does not get his way.
Wasn’t the series named Blackadder Goes Forth?
Can’t even get that right…
I have 150 lbs unpopped pop corn to load into my “Mann O Man O Meter” disclosure delay counter
Man, this is so much fun to watch. Steyn is so witty and articulate and Mann is so pompous and incoherent – sometimes you just get the feeling that the good guys are going to win one. 🙂
Mann needs to stop leaning in at the plate … he’s taken too many balls to the chin … its scrambled his brain …
The problem I have with Dr. Mann’s antics is this –
Dr. Mann has been shown to have a poor grasp of statistics. I understand how short centring proxy data mines for hockey sticks, but only after I was shown it. I would have guessed that such a method would produce incorrect results, but unless shown I would not have guessed hockey sticks.
I find it difficult, very difficult, to believe that the statistical “mistake” made by Dr. Mann was the result of random “accident”.
As Captain Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean says –
“Yharrr, t’would strain credulity at that!”
I look forward to the day when Steyn upends and inverts Mann and then uses him like a candlestick holder to mount the smoldering end of the broken ‘hockeytschtik’ as a trophy to free-speech and science.
April 12, 2014 at 6:42 pm | Konrad says:
This is a subset of Mann’s poor grasp of reality.
Well we have a case on going in Armidale, NSW. A defrocked priest has been charged with an enormous amount of sexual abuse on minors. This started a long trial that included to not publicize his name and allow him bail. We all knew his name anyway! Now he has got another extension, much to the annoyance of the magistrate, who refuses to read 11 volumes of evidence. Now feel sorry for all the victims of these assaults who are standing by to give evidence. I know if a defendant wishes to keep a trial going and is on bail they must start to loose steam or fear intimidation from the defendant. A delaying tactic needs good lawyers to keep pressing for closure. I hope Mann has good health, because he must be getting flack from the alarmist group too. Next thing will he can’t appear because he is in poor health from all the pressure?
Robert Wykoff – thanks for the explanation of “Hide the decline”. I don’t particularly care if anyone on this list is a troll (people who hide under bridges) or a warmist – in fact, if a warmist asks sensible questions it leads to sensible answers.
The next judicial shoe to drop…a ruling from Judge Weisberg on Mann’s anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Steyn’s counter-suit…a HUGE ruling (as I see it anyway). If Mann does not prevail in the lower court, he’ll undoubtedly be appealing to the DC Court of Appeals…where he can get in line behind NR, CEI and Rand Simberg.
I’d sure like to see some updated legal analysis from Prof. Adler at Volokh as to his take on the status quo.
If science caught venereal disease, the gurus of warming are among the culprits.
is it consistent that error contains within it the dna of its own downfall
When money is no object and you have a bottomless pit of expensive, (subsidized) legal representation, you can delay matters ad infinitum if you’re the guilty party. Don’t all the elites work that way?
Those outside the US have a hard time believing what a convoluted, nearly insane civil system we have here. Allow me to illustrate with a case that I’ve had some tangential involvement with for several years – nobody famous involved, really a rather garden variety business dispute. But it demonstrates the trajectory that many cases take in our system, and the path that I think Steyn’s case is about to take.
This was a rather simple dispute about royalty payments and claim of interference in a contract. The problem was that Texas has one set of rules to cover consumer tort law, and another set of rules specifically written to cover oil and gas law. (in terms of disclosure, my ties are to the defendant) The trial court decided the case on the basis of consumer law, against the defendants, but the appeals court threw the entire thing out, writing that the trial court judge showed gross ignorance of the law underlying the entire case. (he had been ousted from the bench by then, for other reasons)
But the outcome wasn’t as important as the fact that this rather ordinary civil case languished for 8 1/2 years in the courts, and to date, each side has spent over $600,000.00 in legal fees. Oh, and the financial ruling? The Appeals Court ruled that there was some liability, and that the defendants owed the plaintiffs $242.00. That’s it – no awards for costs to either side, no punitive damages, no nothing. Oh and the original claim was for $400,000.00. So, for a claim of $400,000,00 and an award of $242, the two sides together spent $1.2 million dollars.
And that is how the US civil court system “works”.
p.s. It still isn’t completely over; there is an appeal pending to the State Supreme Court, although we expect the appeal to be denied. That will probably take another year, though, and briefs for that action will probably cost another $35K for each side. But, once you’ve thrown away $1.2 million, whats another $70K but fuel for the bonfire?
Relevance: This is the kind of path that I think both Steyn and Mann have to look forward to over the next decade.
Prof. Mann seems to enjoy the game, so far.
What about that news item of one of Mann’s attorneys resigning from the case?
For Mann this is a game of Polk and he’s been bluffing too long, Mark has just raised the stakes and asked to ‘see him’.
Mannverick ? Nah doesn’t scan that well.
Oops Polka I’m sure you knew,
[Are you dancing and spinning in circles, polking funds at the writers, or should both be “Pokers”? 8<) Mod]
I went to Mark’s store and purchased a couple of mugs and Biffra and Mann were shoved through my letterbox. Painful……
One should also consider that the reference period for “calibrating” the proxies was very short, less than 100 years, IIRC. The upshot is that if the proxies were unreliable during the reference period, it has to be assumed that they were unreliable outside of it.
Judicial poking? (sorry, slow news morning)
Grimm news for Mann?
jdgalt says:
“I don’t think it really matters that “they are not Nobel Laureates”.
A Nobel Prize no longer means anything, because when the committee that awards them started handing them out to obvious fools like Gore, Obama, and Krugman…”
FWIW, Krugman did not receive a Nobel Prize. Krugman received the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. This was not one of the prizes that Nobel established in his will.
In Mann’s defense, this is probably more the work of lawyers running up their bill.
magic, yes, but if the prosecuting lawyers believe the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has lied or exaggerated their claim, they can lose. Heavilly. There was a case of a young woman taking the CBA to court over alleged harassment etc. The two men she mentioned in a complaint three newspapers printed her case to be heard, naming the men. One didn’t retract, and was sued by the two men concerned. The Daily Telegraph paid for the young woman and family to give evidence. Then something was revealed and they withdrew their defence case and settled. She continued on and on, appeals etc., and ended up with over 6 million dollars in damages and court costs. Don’t lie to a court in Australia or take on a huge organization, like the Commonwealth bank, who were not prepared to settle out of court as she was hoping.
I’m no fan of Mark Steyn, he being in my estimation a prototypical bumper-sticker wingnut and me not being a prototypical bumper-sticker anything. But on this one, I’m on his side. Get on with it, judge. Fair’s fair. What the hell is Michael Mann waiting for?
I still don’t see why people distrust the ‘hockey stick’ graph.
A hockey stick, on its side, is flat for a long time, then goes up steeply towards the end, just as global temperatures have.
And then it comes back down again. Just like global temperatures….