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.
Beta – answered at CA.
Thanks Joseph. My response to yours and Steve McIntyre’s remarks is likewise posted on CA under your original CA post. Joseph W. and Steve McIntyre at CA, Comment 714828
pouncer says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:09 am
Yes.
Also, the New York Times did not join in support.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/national-review-gives-michael-mann-the-stick/#comment-1709021
David L. Hagen says:
August 12, 2014 at 6:14 pm
Barton bills himself as an expert on the Constitution, but he is anything but.
As for the Declaration, Barton claims that Jefferson was the least religious Founder. Garbage. Paine & Franklin (in his mature years) were both less spiritual & religious than Jefferson. He actually believed deeply in a Creator, but opposed the clerics dominating organized religions. He was a Deist, not a conventional Christian, so naturally Barton, a minister, would consider Jefferson a heathen.
The fact that these Amicus briefs were submitted by the ACLU and multiple news
organizations must have Mark Steyn doing a Snoopy dance and experiencing
a level 11 case of Schadenfreude. All Steyn did was refer to Mann as the
“Jerry Sanduski of climate science.” As I have long maintained, a large part
of Mark Steyn’s shtick is sarcasm and biting wit, much like Ann Coulter. It
is for this reason they cannot be held accountable for their utterances any
more than a comedian can be punished for poking fun at any other public
figure or politician.
But at the very heart of this argument is the use of a SLAPP suit to silence
critics. Michael Mann tried this with Dr. Ball and lost because he refused to
submit his research in the discovery process. That and the fact that he has
made several false declarations in support of his argument that he was a Nobel
Prize winner, that this organization has proven his work correct, or that group
proved his detractors wrong, etc., falsehoods he as repeated in the current
court case.
A Mann with a monumental ego has an ego that easily shattered. Mann has
responded to his critics by attempting to sue them into silence instead of
proving them wrong with his “Science.” The problem is that his science
is wrong, and he knows it. The next domino to fall in this charade is that
the institution/s and the patron/s who are funding his SLAPP suits will come
to one of two conclusions; Their pockets are not bottomless or that they
are holding a losing hand. And so far, Mann is on the losing end.
When the end comes, Mann’s reputation (and ego) will splatter like a
jumper from the top floor of the Empire State Building. It will not be a
pretty sight! The University of Zimbabwe will not even offer him a job,
and no country on Earth will be offering him a research grant.
In the end, he will be sitting in an alley with a tin cup and a sign reading:
“Will do science for food.”
“Will fake science for food.”
milodonharlani:
I am not an American so state no views on your Constitution or its origin. However, I can observe when an error of fact is asserted concerning motivation.
At August 14, 2014 at 12:47 pm you say
“Naturally?!” No.
I would not object if you had written that the difference of belief may have provided prejudice, but you claim it “naturally” did. The undeniable facts are not as you say but are:
He was a Deist, not a conventional Christian, and this may have induced Barton, a minister, to consider Jefferson a heathen.
Military Chaplains often conduct multi-faith worship and always have. Last week the centenary of outbreak of the Great War, 1914-1919, was commemorated in several cathedrals and, for example, the Anglican Worship at Westminster Abbey included prayers and acts of remembrance led by leaders of several Christian denominations, a Jewish leader, and a Muslim peeress. I have shared e.g. Bhuddist and Hindu Worship although I was praying to the God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Religious views are not as closed as you assert. Few religious ministers are bigots, and bigots exist among all people not only religious ministers
Richard
With respect Richard, I was brought up a Roman Catholic in the 40s and 50s in England. My father’s family were devote RC’s but there definitely was a dislike of protestants, yet my father thought the High Church of England (Anglican) were not too bad. I was not allowed to study Religious Education for my GCE, but I sat in the class. I was not allowed to join the girl guides because they only accepted protestants in their local troop. When I married my first husband, my father told the family he was a RC. But we were married in an Anglican church at RAF Akrotiri, in Cyprus. My ex would not allow my three boys to be baptised, he didn’t believe in it. So bigotry is a culture clash isn’t it that can effect one’s life.
I would be very careful with OCR, you have to crawl through the document to check accuracy. One tactic is to have someone read the original to you slowly while you read the OCR result. One missed word or part of word can change meaning. Some scanner software even misses part of the page.
I’ve been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or blog posts in this kind of space Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this site. Studying this info So i’m glad to show that
richardscourtney says:
August 15, 2014 at 1:00 am
Perhaps you’re not familiar with the views of Barton in particular of or those of American fundamentalist, conservative Christians in general. They are a world apart from what you’ll generally find in Britain.
milodonharlani:
re your post at August 20, 2014 at 2:43 pm/
You are right. I am ignorant of “the views of Barton in particular of or those of American fundamentalist, conservative Christians in general.”
Perhaps Barton was as you suggested. My point was that being a Christian minister is not a clear indication that he was a bigot because most are not.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2014 at 2:55 pm
Barton’s not a bigot, just wrong. “Naturally” is the right word, given his views & those of his followers. I don’t disagree with him on Natural Law so much as on his views of the Founders’ beliefs, which are easily show false. He’s a minister, not an historian.
shown
Why not photo copy. Only originals are allowed in court.