Mark Steyn has submitted an amicus curiae brief in the CEI/National Review -vs- Mann and it has some interesting language. Unfortunately, since it is a scan of printed document, rather than a PDF conversion, I can’t excerpt as easily, so I have to use screencaps.
Mann’s goal is to drag things out.
Steyn lays out what it is all about – punishment by legal delay and the expenses it brings:
The issue is broader than just Mann’s delicate sensibilities:
The “Nobel laureate” that wasn’t caused delay while he fixed his own self-serving lies:
Read it all here: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6514.pdf
Mann has himself a peck of trouble taking on Steyn, who isn’t going to roll over and take it. Kudos to him for this brief exposing Mann for what he is; a fabricator of falsehoods in full view of the court.
Gaming the system has become an epidemic. Recently a homeowner was red-tagged by a low level EPA inspector for building on a “wetland” on his property. The homeowner had obtained local permits.
The “wetland” turned out to be a small seasonal puddle. No wildlife used it. So the homeowner took the EPA to court.
The EPA fought every step of the way, using taxpayer funds. The EPA never considered any compromise — they intended to punish the homeowner. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court! Legal fees for the homeowner were in the $hundreds of thousands.
The homeowner won the case. But when a government bureaucrat can inflict such pain and suffering on a lowly homeowner, the government has gotten too big and too powerful. That case is just an example of numerous similar cases across the country.
I don’t know the answer. But in Steyn’s case, he is fighting the good fight. It is really a fight against evil. It is the little guy vs big government. Mann’s lawyers judge-shopped, and found Judge Combs-Green, a clearly incompetent affirmative action appointee who is sure to take sides. She has already taken sides every step of the way. Steyn’s brief is simply getting his ducks in a row for the inevitable appeal. This case will probably go to the Supreme Court, too.
A lot of loose talk here about “justice”. The US legal system does not pretend to pursue justice. In fact, it has nothing to do with justice which is regarded as transcendent. It pursues correct procedure under the principles of legal positivism. Ours is not a justice system. On the other hand, as a lawyer told me years ago, with enough money you can get justice. Most attorneys avoid going to court if at all possible because the out come can not be predicted and it is expensive. Don’t be surprised if the result is not favorable.
I have always thought Climate Science would not survive a court of law. Rules of evidence and other protocols in court proceedings would severely damage the climate alarmists cause. Intelligent design died a horrible death when a school district was brought to court for trying to teach it in science class.
There is no way Mann allows this to go to trial.
It is unfortunate the judge in this case is not wise enough to expedite this case. As in any system, no matter how great the system, the flaw remains the human factor.
“s it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW…”
That’s like hoping for a magic flying unicorn to show up and save the day.
ain’t no such thing.
Dave says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:49 am
Jtom says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:43 am
Is it too much to hope that ethical scientist who agree with AGW will become appalled at Mann’s behavior, resulting in a schism in the AGW cabal, and start challenging each other’s work (i,e., start behaving like scientists)?
The answer to your question is yes… it is too much to hope for
———-
oxymoron? Ethical AND agree with AGW? But then again, real scientists are lied to right along with the general public. Judith Curry is one who is waking up. There are others. One who assumed AGW was simply science got the raw data skeptics couldn’t get, when he wanted to advance “the science.” But after his findings went “the wrong way,” he was excoriated, and I met him at one of Heartland’s conferences talking about the cabal cutting the number of climate stations so as to increase the appearance of warming.
Alx @ur momisugly 10:58 a.m.
The trial will not get into the scientific details of climate science. Regardless of who wins this particular case, it won’t have much impact on the climate debate. (Similarly, your reference to the ID case is also severely off base. You misunderstood the case and the result.)
Court is not a particularly good place to try issues of science. As much as we would all like to see our particular side of a “science” question supported by the prestige of a court ruling, that just isn’t the way it works.
Thankfully.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
GOOD READ!
There is an expression: justice delayed, is Justice denied.
I think microsofts onenote has free optical character recognition built into it and its free.
climatereflections says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:27 am
//////////////////
The Court would be a good place to test the science, ie., whether the null hypothesis has been disproved or not..
The problem is that it is difficult to frame a legal cause of action in which the science would be relevant, and therefore needed to be tested by the Court.
Alx says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:58 am
There is no way I would want someone who went to law school as a preferred alternative to taking science and math (which describes most lawyers and judges) to decide a question of science in a courtroom.
Robert Bissett says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:46 am
//////////////////
The English joke: American law is the best justice that money can buy.
To what extent that is a truism I do not know, but there is reason to suspect corruption whether by money, power or favour does play a hand, as one can see not least in the political appointments of the DA, and Justices to the Supreme Court.
That is not to say that the English system is perect, but it is less flawed.
THe US did a better job with its constitution, but a worse job with its judiciary.
A an actual Nobelist defends a fake Nobelist, which does nothing to elevate the status of the “prize”.
Paul Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/) is fully invested in the tribulations and trials (literally) of the great Mann.
Krugman’s Nobel must have addled his brain, he now thinks that he is an instant expert in all fields. No research required.
Anthony, you said: “Unfortunately, since it is a scan of printed document, rather than a PDF conversion, I can’t excerpt as easily, so I have to use screencaps.”
Check your email. Best, Charles the DrPH
I can run this through my OCR software if that would be useful. Accuracy is good but not 100% guaranteed.
America’s constitution was based on the Roman Republic, the Greek democracies, and Ancient Israel. One of the Earliest and greatest legal commenters of the United States, Blackstone, said that Law was not “created”” by legislatures, but “discovered”–in the Bible.
Today, many of us have a much lower opinion of the Bible, and those who revere it do not want it supported by force. So, call it philosophy–philosophy that has stood the test of time.
There is a law in the Torah that is relevant here, and that should have been incorporated into the Constitution about a plaintiff who knowingly brings a false case. Such a plaintiff is supposed to suffer the same penalty s/he tried to bring against another (Deut 19:18-19). In America, that has to include the ruinous expenses.
This omission can be rectified by a Constitutional Amendment. Anyone here want to start such a movement?
But to have corrupt courts, that means were are no longer under the Rule of Law, we are no longer a Republic and our freedoms and our wealth vanish. It is vitally important to restore the Rule of Law,and the integrity of our courts in the United States. That is very challenging to do, but we must do it. Climate skeptics are not the only one wanting it. We must work with others and make it happen.
pouncer says: August 12, 2014 at 8:04 am
“The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, and Steyn as a friend of the appeals court reminds that court of the costs of delay and benefits of a speedy decision.”
It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann.
ladylifegrows says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” was published in 1765-69. He died in 1780. The Founders did rely on the Commentaries, but Blackstone did not comment on the legal system of the US.
America’s Constitution owes nothing to the Bible. Nowhere in the notes of Madison or other members of the Constitutional Convention is there any mention of biblical passages being cited in debates on the Constitution.
Nor in the 85 articles & essays of the Federalist Papers, are scriptural citations to be found. The word “God” is used twice, but once in reference to ancient Greek pagan gods. “Almighty” is used twice & “Providence” three times, but neither term is ever used in connection with constitutional principles or influence thereupon. The Bible is not mentioned.
I agree with you however that frivolous lawsuits should be discouraged by making losers pay the victor’s court costs, as IMO (please correct me if wrong) is already the case in the UK, without benefit of reference to Torah.
Hayek’s Nobel banquet speech is so incredibly appropriate regarding Krugman, that it is hard to believe it really is decades old:
“Yet I must confess that if I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it.
[…]
It is that the Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.
[…]
But the influence of the economist that mainly matters is an influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public generally.
There is no reason why a man who has made a distinctive contribution to economic science should be omnicompetent on all problems of society – as the press tends to treat him till in the end he may himself be persuaded to believe.
One is even made to feel it a public duty to pronounce on problems to which one may not have devoted special attention.”
earwig42 says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:27 am
Yes indeed. If you already know you want to support Steyn, here’s a direct link:
Click Here if you trust me to get the hyperlink right.
or paste this if not:
http://www.steynonline.com/6159/stick-it-to-the-mann-and-win-one-for-free-speech
And for reference, here is the Steyn column that caused Mann to target him:
or paste this if I goofed up again:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/309442/football-and-hockey-mark-steyn
Keeping Steyn in the battle is huge for the skeptic side. Besides, he’s entertaining.
Quite right. We have a legal system, not a justice system.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm
It’s interesting that Steyn does not compare Mann to Sandusky, in fact, commenting upon another opinion piece, states the comparison is one he wouldn’t make. Yet isn’t Mann accusing him of the opposite? How hasn’t that portion of this case been thrown out?
pouncer says: August 12, 2014 at 8:04 am
“The *case* is stalled while the *appeal* is being considered, and Steyn as a friend of the appeals court reminds that court of the costs of delay and benefits of a speedy decision.”
Nick Stokes says: August 12, 2014 at 1:24 pm
It is CEI/National Review who instituted the appeal, not Mann
That is why Steyn writes as a “friend of the appeals court” (amicus curiae), just as Pouncer said, instead of as an “appellant” or a “party” before the court.
He’s right to do it because (as he says in the brief) the trial court has delayed his case until this CEI/NR appeal is decided; so he does have an interest in the appeal being decided quickly, even though he is not a party to the appeal himself.
[Please, a few words of explanation when posting links. ~ mod.]
Dear Mr. Steyn,
Use this weather report.
Just Northwest of Cooper Texas aka near Lake Cooper, North East Texas.
Just now wind Northwest 15 to 20.
Tonight down in the Sulfer River bottoms on our land, low will be 58 F or possible lower.
August, mid August in Texas.
Mike Mann is full of the bs we produce from CO2.