![Delayed[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/delayed1.png?quality=75)
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.