Quote of the week: The link between 'defending Michael Mann is defending climate science' seems to have been broken

Mark Steyn writes:

[Tuesday] marked a not unimportant court deadline in the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century, and I wouldn’t want to let it pass without comment. Ever since this tedious suit was launched by Doctor Fraudpants in defense of his global-warming hockey stick, Michael Mann’s supporters have insisted that it’s not, as I and my fellow defendants have insisted, about free speech. Instead, as they see it, it’s about science finally fighting back against a sustained assault by Koch-funded “denialists”. This sub-headline encapsulates the general line:

Michael Mann is taking a stand for science.

Gotcha. Michael Mann is not doing this for Michael Mann, or even for Michael Mann’s science, or even for climate science. He’s doing it for science. Mann is science and science is Mann.

A few weeks ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:

I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.

“At this point, we don’t know,” she said.

Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call “lowering expectations”. As I wrote:

I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly’s genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs – and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader “war on science” by well-funded “deniers”, I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I’m confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.

Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann. The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:

The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.

As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there.

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

More here: http://www.steynonline.com/6565/the-lonesomest-mann-in-town

This development is very telling, and is the moment that the tide of consensus receded and left Mann out standing in his field.

the-tide-has-turned

Advertisements

161 thoughts on “Quote of the week: The link between 'defending Michael Mann is defending climate science' seems to have been broken

    • Mark Steyn is a truly brilliant man with a ferocious interest in truth and freedom. The world will owe him glory when this is over, although he is well-admired by many already.

    • That’s because rats are a higher order rodent compared to cagw alarmists. They are less of a pest generally and even likeable ( cunning as an outhouse rat etc). Hopefully the alarmists will all just go quietly and commit mass cultural suicide a la Disney Lemmings and just go get real jobs cleaning dishes and wiping geratiric arses in old folks homes or something closer to (but still way above) their true standing in the community. (apologies to dish washers and arse wipers everywhere).
      I read a sci fi book recently which referred to a class of its characters as being educated above their IQ. Doesn’t that say it all about Dr Strangecurve and the rest of the alarmoswarm?

      • My dad used to refer to them as “educated fools”. My association with many PhDs in science (let alone in English departments) confirms his diagnosis. Some fellow JDs also qualify!

      • Will everybody stop blaming the rats for the Black Death that killed untold millions in Europe and Asia. Firstly, the Black Death was not bubonic plague. This is a 20th century myth devised after an outbreak in Hong Kong circa 1900. The description bore a superficial similarity to those given by 14th century eyewitnesses. Other than that, the epidemiologies are totally different – the gestation periods, the fatality rate, the geographical distribution, the available vectors, etc. The Black death was a hemorrhagic virus that left its mark on our DNA. It was humans who spread it to each other, not rattus rattus.

    • People talk about canaries in coal mines, but not many know that in underground mines, rats are the first to leave when the ground starts to become unstable, and moreover, miners are told to follow them because they always know the quickest way out.

  1. (To the tune of “Brother Can You Spare a Dime”)
    They used to tell me I was building a dream
    And so I followed the mob
    When there were graphs to fake or bucks to take
    I was always there, right on the job
    They used to tell me I was building a dream
    Saving the Earth just ahead
    Why is everyone telling me
    My theory is dead?
    Once I built a model, ignored the sun
    Showed heat was going to climb
    It failed outside the computer run
    Brother, can you paradigm?
    Once I saw it coming all undone
    Colleagues said it’s a crime
    Since loss of funding is no fun
    I need a new paradigm
    Once before the cameras, we looked swell
    Full of that AG Warming shtick
    There wasn’t a thing we couldn’t sell
    And I was the kid with the Stick
    Say don’t you remember? They called me ‘Man’
    It was ‘Man’ all the time
    I’m a believer, I’m still a fan
    Say Buddy, can you paradigm?

  2. Although there appears to be no one willing to stand with Mann in this xase, there were so many climateers who were very quiet during the height of Mann’s version of science and through his smears. There were so many who sat back knowing what was going on and said nothing!
    Thankfully, the internet has a long memory, despite attempts to change this.

    • “Thankfully, the internet has a long memory, despite attempts to change this.”
      I wonder how many climate scientists will be making applications to Google, in order to have their climate histories removed?

  3. Brings to mind the old saying, “To make a friend you have to be a friend.”
    It seems suing the pants off anyone with the slightest of rise of an eyebrow at your work is not a successful strategy for making friends.

      • But they spotted the cracks in the hockey stick before it became an established political lever, before Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global WARMING was fully used used as a PR tool.
        Now Mann and his lawsuits are cannon fodder used to silence the science.

  4. I do not recall who posted the link first – But whoever you are, thank you! It was well worth the read. (I read it earlier when someone posted a link in a comment).

  5. Later in the column Steyn notes:

    We incline more to the Judith Curry way of doing things here, so I’m happy to post Mann’s latest feeble legal pleading at SteynOnline. There’s not much of interest in it, except in the section on page 21 headed “Jurisdiction”, where Dr Mann has withdrawn his objection that “an appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss under the Act does not meet the stringent requirements of the collateral order doctrine”. If that makes your eyeballs bleed, it’s to do with the fact that, at the time the District of Columbia passed its anti-SLAPP law, it was not clear whether a ruling under the law was immediately appealable. If that still makes your eyeballs bleed, well, join the club: we’re essentially a test case for a new law whose full scope the DC Appeals Court has yet to pronounce on. But I read Mann’s reversal of his earlier position this way – that he’s desperately hoping the DC judges will rule that the anti-SLAPP is immediately appealable and then they’ll toss the whole case out, and get him off the hook of his own vanity before he has to spend any more time holed up with M J Murphy [Big City Lib] and David Appell.

    He adds further that no matter what the outcome of the above legal argument, his countersuit will still be in effect.
    Is Mann losing his resolve?

    • At 1:52 PM on 17 September, pottereaton had asked:

      Is Mann losing his resolve?

      Why not? And it’s about time he did. After all, it’s been more than seventeen years since he lost his scientific integrity.
      Sold his birthright for a pot of “message.”

  6. Perhaps his supporters forget to set their alarm clocks?
    Or maybe all the other alarms they’ve got going drowned it out and that’s why he’s now adrift?

  7. In my best Don Rickles voice:
    “First you destroyed the hockey stick and now you go after the hockey puck!”
    ____________________
    Friends of Science are no friends of Mann.

  8. Bully for Mr. Steyn.
    Mann has been conspicuous in the many tells of his behavior.
    Winding his version of climate science-as-political hardball will be a tough. His suit should have been tossed from day one, and the fat lady has certainly not started singing. But maybe she is warming up.

  9. Here is a chance for all the do-gooder scientist types and organizations to finally come out and destroy all of us “d” words with their sciency stuff ! Bring it!!!!
    (crickets)

    • I sang along! Badly…but I did it. Graduated from HS in the early 70’s so you must be patient. It was hard not to say “sleepy Jean”. Don’t even try to write a song and replace the lyrics in “Yellow Submarine”.

      • In the town where I was born
        Lived a Mann who wailed at seas
        And he told us of his life
        In the land of climate dreams
        So we wailed for the UN
        Till we swelled the ranks of Greens
        And we lived above the plebes
        With our green tambourines
        Listen while we flay
        Our green tambourines!
        Climate change, song change, course change!
        Whence this antarctic ice?
        Where’s that confounded warmth?

  10. I almost feel sorry for Mann.
    Oh wait, he’s 100% responsible for bring this grief down upon himself. On reflection I don’t feel sorry for him at all.

    • Nope, not even Nick Stokes. Seems that our former poster-boy is a lost cause (which would not deter our good friend Nick but there are simply too many lost causes to pursue)

      • He still post over at Climate Ect. Seems a lot more reasonable the he was a few years ago. More willing to hear other peoples arguments and better at making his own from scientific facts rather then appeals to authority. Certainly better then many of the ‘climate faithful’.

  11. The fact that Mann is not in jail for the great harm to science and people that he has done makes me very sad and disappointed. But this suit gives me a little hope. (yes I know it is only a civil case — but still)
    ~Mark

  12. “the tide of consensus receded and left Mann out standing in his field.”
    This is precious! When I had a farm near the tiny town of Bearbrook, Ontario, the local store was owned by a wag that could split you up laughing on every visit. He told me one day that my neighbour Bill had won the Nobel Prize. Going along with it I asked what he got it for and he replied: “Because he was outstanding in his field!” I’m sure Steyn intended this very fine crack.

  13. Some people, especially those with something to hide, like the UK’s infamous Robert Maxwell, cannot help themselves from being serial litigants.
    Somebody states the truth and immediately out come Sue, Grabbit and Runne with their legal writs to suppress that truth.
    Not surprisingly, no one wants to stand by Mann in this case. Why should any real scientist want to be associated with him?

  14. This post prompted me to check to see what Mann was saying on his Facebook page. I wish I hadn’t. His latest show of heart-warming humility and self-effacement was this keeper:
    “Honored to be named by Science as one of “The top 50 science stars of Twitter” ”
    Surely “/s” is not needed?

  15. Have a look at the twitter hashtag #AskDrMann
    – Mann and Penn state seemed to think it would be a great idea to encourage people to ask him questions in public on twitter. It didn’t go very well for them.

  16. I am so glad that Steyn shared this heartwarming news and put it in perspective with his earlier fears that various Mann-supporting organizations would come out of the woodwork at some point.
    Is Mann still supposed to give a talk in Bristol in the near future? I’ve been away from WUWT due to work pressures lately and am wondering if there are any plans afoot for an informal gathering of climate realists in Bristol?

      • Henry, I should clarify my response below – I’ll be in Bristol from Saturday through to Monday night or Tuesday morning before continuing on to a conference in Norway. I’m sorry I’ll be missing the rest of you in Bristol. I would have enjoyed meeting fellow skeptics.

      • Dear vigilantfish,
        Have fun wherever you are. This saga has become similar to all ‘end of the world’ scenarios. Most folk have a sneaking suspicion it could happen on their watch but, the odds are very much against it (based on our history. YMMV)
        I expect it to run and run so we may have many chances of meeting at meetings 😉
        Until then, take good care.

  17. You do not celebrate your win until you crossed the line , although Mann being throw under the bus, in an attempt to save themselves and their pay cheques, will be a good site to see . Its not happened yet. Like his other court cases , I expect some form back down followed by a ‘poor me out gunned by the evil fossil fuel conspiracy’ claim but I hope I am wrong and his massive ego finally gets the better of him.
    Meanwhile the real high stakes game is now the 21st , if they bust on this one the alarmists will have little hope for Paris which may be the last times one of these UN ‘parties ‘ of this size which has any hope of any impact at all. Although I understand the loss that would be to the high end hotel and restaurant trade and the bottom line of private plane charters , I am sure ‘something ‘ will be found that requires their services ,at tax payers expense, again .
    Meanwhile the IPCC, like all UN bodies, can carry on living long after its purpose or head has been cut off , has nothing really dies in UN land it merely changes the name of its sub-group committees policy report.

  18. I said when this thing started that Mann’s supporters would evaporate. It is one thing to throw out one liners to the media, quite another to state fact in a court of law where being held accountable for what you say (perjury, counter suit etc) has potentially serious (and direct) consequences. The rats are not yet deserting the cagw ship, but one of their own is overboard and the rest are going to avoid falling in the drink with him by stretching out a paw… er, hand.

  19. Nit pik:
    “The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken” is bad English- It’s not a complete sentence . You should have worded it
    “The link between defending Michael Mann AND defending climate science seems to have been broken”, or
    “The link between Michale Mann and climate science has been broken, you can defend climate science without defending Michael Mann”.
    [Remember: The writer here (WUWT) is quoting Mark Steyn who is quoting J. Cuury’s remark in her blog. .mod]

    • The “is” in “defending Michael Mann is defending climate science” is a linking verb…and that link is broken. 😉

  20. What I found repugnant about ‘Mann’ was his legal threat against the satirical video released just after “Climategate” by the “Minnesotans for Global Warming”.
    Allthough they had made satirical videos of other notable people like Al Gore,’Mann’ was the only one threatening Legal Action. Just being a bunch of ‘Music Makers’ with no money They had to ‘Pull’ the video to avoid litigation.
    The original Is here,Enjoy.

  21. “I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs.”

    I’m sure he’s confident he won’t need any supporting briefs. What good are they when they’ll just be hidden underneath the suit of new clothes he borrowed from the emperor?

  22. Oh my, things did not go well for the good Dr. today on Twitter. Not only does he have no Amici, it appears he also has no friends!

  23. Does Michael E. Mann in his lawsuit have delusional perceptions of himself as a heroic modern day Spartacus freeing CAGW advocating scientists from oppression? He appears to imagine that he is a modern Spartacus who is out to single handedly free CAGW scientists from any criticism by those he thinks of as evilly oppressive skeptics. In search of amicus briefs his lawyers were in search on anyone standing up for Mann. His lawyers surely asked among past supporters the equivalent of “WHO IS SPARTACUS?”.
    In response to Mann’s lawyer’s search for amicus briefs no one stood in a gesture of support or protection of Mann to say “I AM SPARTICUS”.
    Notably none of his ‘noble’ cause’s intellects stepped forward. Nor did any of the groups*** that Mann imagines have investigated and exonerated him step forward with amicus briefs.
    Nor did even the Union of Concerned Scientists, with its legal funder Mandia, give an amicus brief.
    *** The groups Mann imagines investigated and exonerated him are:
    – the NSF
    – NOAA’s OIG
    – the EPA
    – PSU
    – the Muir Russell Inquiry (commissioned by UEA)
    – the Oxburgh Panel Inquiry (commissioned by UEA)
    – not HMG’s DECC
    – not HMG’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
    John
    Reply: Well PSU did exonerate him, they just skipped the investigation part. ~ ctm, violating mod policy by identifying myself. D’oh! Good to see yah. I’ll be here all week.

    • ~ctm,
      : )
      Nice to know you still do duty all along the watchtowers.
      Re: PSU – In a certain sense, very ineptly done whitewashing impugnes whoever was whitewashed.
      John

    • That was the movie version, of course. Spartacus died bravely fighting in the front lines. He received some grudging admiration for this from contemporary historians.

  24. Re: the Spartacus comparison, it’s as if the other rebel slaves said nothing, but everyone rolled their eyes in his direction and silently pointed.

    • James Schrumpf on September 17, 2014 at 4:54 pm
      Re: the Spartacus comparison, it’s as if the other rebel slaves said nothing, but everyone rolled their eyes in his direction and silently pointed.

      – – – – – – – –
      James Schrumpf,
      : )
      . . . and also maybe they winked at each other then checked WUWT on their smartphones to see the latest Mannian follies.
      John

  25. Ten Reasons Global warming suits fisher men.
    1) The seas are rising. = More water means more fish Yee-ha!
    2) Higher sea levels will mean more turbulent seas. = I’ll need a bigger boat. Yee-ha!
    3) There will be more rain events= I’ll need a bigger boat with an enclosed bridge. Yee-ha!
    4) There will be more droughts on land. = No droughts at sea so I can still go fishing. Yee-ha!
    5) We will have to cut production and reduce to a four day week = Three days a week fishing. Yee-ha!
    6) Cost of diesel fuel goes up. = With the three day weekend I’ll switch to a bigger slower boat with smaller engines and still save fuel. Yee-ha!
    7) The prices of homes will increase as more land is flooded. = I’ll live on the boat. Yee-ha!
    8) The climate will get hotter. = I’ll get a bigger, slower, boat with smaller engines an enclosed bridge and air-conditioning. Yee-ha!
    9) Unemployment will increase. = More fishing buddies with free time on their hands and crew who work for nothing. Yee-ha!
    10) With a shorter working week the wife and her friends will spend more time on the boat. = OK there are only nine reasons. Bugger!
    http://bullprotettoremurdermysteries.blogspot.co.nz/

    • “1) The seas are rising. = More water means more fish Yee-ha!”
      And, the fish being higher means you don’t have to bend over to pick them up.
      /grin

  26. We will see. His lawyers are up for sanctioned for false pleadings. . Him,, not so much yet, depending on how he responds in court. So Steyn needs to get him there. I imagine Mann will use every possible legal wiggle not to land there. And, I will gladly contribute legal knowledge and finances to those who will essay that Mann does not evade that ultimate comeuppance, ever. Endgames have cost consequences, Always. Right. Let the endgames begin.

  27. It’s worse than Mann probably realizes. Not only is he falling back to earth with a thud, when Gore, Obama, Hillary, Kerry et al are standing around naked when their AGW cloaks fall off they’re going to need someone to blame their humiliation on. They are never going to say “I was deliberately deceiving you”, best they’ll be able to muster is “I was wrong, but I was the victim of a certain scientist’s fraud”.

    • “It’s worse than Mann probably realizes. Not only is he falling back to earth with a thud, when Gore, Obama, Hillary, Kerry et al are standing around naked when their AGW cloaks fall off they’re going to need someone to blame their humiliation on. They are never going to say “I was deliberately deceiving you”, best they’ll be able to muster is “I was wrong, but I was the victim of a certain scientist’s fraud”.”
      LTJ, I believe the first aggrieved party will be Branson. It’s his money, not the public’s, and I don’t believe they are going to shame him into throwing it into a fraudulent hole. They will be lucky if he just fades away from AGW, instead of hitting back – hard.

    • Stop it !! Can’t bear to imagine Hillary Clinton standing around naked. “I did not have sex with that woman!”

  28. It comes with great pleasure to see Mann pay the price for being a bully and his arrogance. I hope this case plays out to the fullest. The warmist crowd has been sticking their feet in their mouths for 20 years with proof readily available so they all are watching.

  29. When this stuff ends up on the Late Night talk show circuit, you know the end is near. Fortunately Obama is turning out to be every bit as material rich as the opposite end of the spectrum was. The answer to the Idiot who beat the drum of “Americanistickismness”: I give you Dumbo, complete with ears, the author of “Hopinessistickness”. Where DO we find these leaders??????

  30. This is GREAT news! Fighting the CAGW alarmists in the “court of public opinion” has always been tough because the lefty pols and the sycophantic press and the Hollywood libs and academia and the late-night talk-show blabbers were working in concert to ridicule the skeptics.
    But now it’s time to stand in court, under oath, and put reputations on the line
    [crickets]
    No one deserves this lonely, silent ovation more than Michael Mann.
    Hooray! Go Steyn! My favorite “undocumented alien honorary Yank”!

  31. Regrettably I imagine that Mann is happy with the progress so far. I think he and the climateistas/EPA folks is to Strategically litigate against Public Participation…from wiki:
    The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.
    Two judges have kept this circus going, which right there is a victory. Like the satire site who pulled its video, future people may be a little less interested in attacking the climate people….i.e. Mission Accomplished
    Oh sure, the friends of the court was maybe something of an embarrassment…but really, do you think Mann is embarrassed? Nor do I.

    • Don’t forget, Steyn filed a counter suit for a nominal piddling sum.
      Once IRS starts asking Manniacal where Manny boy’s income tax payment is for all of the funds Manny lad spent for the trial(s).
      A glorious future for science starting with a very justified one, two, he’s down for the count; Manniacal’s smack down.

      • Under Obama, there is no chance that the IRS would ever investigate a fellow traveler. Even if we get a Republican in 2016, the IRS bureaucracy would never permit such an investigation to proceed.

  32. Josh could have some fun with this.
    The Climate Clown performing with his hockey stick before a crowd of empty seats.

  33. Not to rain on the parade, not too much anyway, but this is far from over, probably 10 to 12 years at least. There are at least half a dozen suits going at once and Mann’s obvious intent is to simply drag it out as long as possible, to both punish Steyn and Champion the cause. Mann has nothing to lose and everything to gain by delaying the inevitable…. And of course Mann could easily win the case, it is before Democratically appointed Judges who understand exactly who they owe their careers too.

    • Yep … NEVER underestimate the “circle the wagons” mentality of the political faction of the CAGW cabal.
      These types of things tend to be resume enhancers for this crowd!!

    • Ghengis asserted: “Mann has nothing to lose and everything to gain by delaying the inevitable….”
      Huh?! The twenty *million* dollar counter suit hangs exactly on demonstrating that Mann is using the courts to bully and indeed drag things out on purpose as a vexious litigator. When courts get involved finally, as they now are, Mann is very much at risk not in a decade but in a year.

  34. Two thoughts…
    The ‘consensus’ in climate science just threw MM under the bus. (I guess nobody wants to be linked with this cat anymore…)
    ‘Science’ is a self correcting process, and we are now witnessing science correcting ‘the process.’ (With the help of others…) How sweet it is….

  35. NOT ONE amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann?!!!
    That is indeed an amazing thing.
    Truly this must be a turning point.
    Many thanks to Mark Steyn for his courage in taking this on.

  36. Actually, many thanks to Mikey. We wouldn’t be near as far along as we are now without that ivoried tower of sciencey intellect.

    • Disagree. They have sidetracked science for 30 years. No thanks to Mikey et al. There has never been a “climate baseline” established ( as H.H.Lamb tried to do), before they blamed it all (falsely) on Co2.

  37. Submitting an amicus brief is support of Mann would entail a high risk to one’s own credibility if he loses. Fraudsters already have enough risk maintaining their own scam. Signing on to assist a fellow fraudster is not something they do unless the outcome is certain to be in their favour.

  38. Interested to get someone’s legal analysis on this one. I believe this non-action occurred in the pleadings for the appeal by the non-Steyn defendants of the anti-SLAPP ruling. If the non-Steyn defendants win, does the Mann suit against Steyn remain? Does the Steyn suit against Mann remain?

    • Mann and the others were sued in the same suit, so throwing it out for one throws it out for all.
      The counter-suit still remains and the fact that the original suit was thrown out by the courts would strengthen the counter suit. In my opinion.

  39. This is more than slightly premature. The fact is that any amicus brief from anyone would have to get through their legal team first, and all the organizations you mention would have such a team. This lawyer would then have to explain the consequences of placing oneself against free speech. Even the “Democracy must be suppressed” crowd isn’t willing to make that stand publicly. Besides, Mann has an untenable position. It would not surprise me if several briefs were first drafted (or at least started) and then abandoned when they realize that they had no way of defending their position. Even Mann’s lawyers would probably have dropped it if they were able.
    Finally, back to my starting point. You can’t draw any conclusions about support of global warming given this situation. Mann lost his unconditional public support because he has clearly crossed every line imaginable and is quite literally fighting against freedom of the press itself. This is as close to heresy as you can get in secular America.
    While it is good that the alarmists have some measure of decency, a line they won’t cross. This says little to nothing about the overall debate.

    • I disagree that alarmists have some measure of decency. As you state they see the folly of publicly acknowledging their “Democracy must be suppressed” tendencies would not serve their interests.

    • Wait a second with your whitewash here, for if Mann were really scientifically supported by so many scientific bodies, for real, it wouldn’t be a free speech issue at all, just libel. No, we don’t have free speech for slander, nor should we. And it only becomes slander if the *science* is indeed supported empirically and mathematically. This trial is becoming one of the biggest *scientific* blows to the establishment for it exposes it as being merely a bunch of bluster, without substance, for in public so many have scoffed at skeptics for trying to get Mann and the whole hockey stick team banned from science, to help climatology recover some rigor, to get back to real science instead of supporting criminal fraud. The next stage is to indeed put these Enron level scammers behind bars. Mann’s loud promotion of the Marcott 2013 bladeless input data hockey stick, creating a media sensation, alone merits a RICO conviction of his whole team.

    • The line they won’t cross is more about exposure, not principle. Alarmists have abandoned principle a long time ago and they usually do generally support people like Gleick. What’s different here is that Mann is more attention getting and Steyn is better at giving it to him.
      Abandoning principle is especially true for those that profess to uphold the scientific method.

  40. Michael Mann has no supporting briefs.
    So he’s going commando?
    That’s a scary thought. We could see an unexpected reappearance of his hockey stick.
    Reply: A bridge, nay a continent too far. Seriously…I can never unread that. Never. ~ctm

    • At 12:10 AM on 18 September, kadaka (KD Knoebel) had posted:

      Michael Mann has no supporting briefs.
      So he’s going commando?
      That’s a scary thought. We could see an unexpected reappearance of his hockey stick.

      But in what way will he hide the decline this time?
      Mike’s UnNature-al trick?

  41. “Reply: A bridge, nay a continent too far. Seriously…I can never unread that. Never. ~ctm”
    Perhaps you meant “an incontinent too far”

  42. As false as its to say “Michael Mann is taking a stand for science”, it is as true to say Steyn is taking a stand for free speech and press. Of course not government suppressed free speech, but free speech suppressed by the sue-happy with access to deep pockets.
    I suspect that is why no amicus breifs for Mann, who wants to get on board with suppressing free speech.

  43. I can’t imagine anyone on Mann’s side wanting to see this thing go to trial where they’ll have no control over the proceedings. Imagine a long line of climate scientists wandering past mann’s table muttering under their breath, “hope it was worth it, a**hole” after being grilled for hours about the context of every climategate email they’ve ever written or read by hostile council. Who would file an amicus brief for that?

  44. Speculating . . . . . .
    Perhaps the reason there were no amicus briefs obtained by Michael E. Mann’s (director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University) lawyers is that they never sought any amicus briefs. If they didn’t seek amicus briefs the reason could be that their end game is not to go to trial. If that is their end game then they would need to enter into serious bargaining wth Steyn to drop his countersuit. A bargain to drop countersuit would depend on Steyn’s temper temperature.
    John

  45. Do not under estimate the dollar power of businesses that depend on the future of the hockey stick. It’s the foundation of Al Gore’s entire sales pitch. Anyone who’s interested can check the connections from Waste Management to Harvest Power to David Blood to Generation Investment Management.

  46. “Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science.”
    Last Mann standing…

  47. You’ll see. When CO2 concentrations hit critical mass, the resulting
    Pole-Shifts and their seismic eco-sequellae will demonstrate the prescience that only the titanic intellects possessed by Dr. Michael Mann and a very few of his peers could deduce.
    You’ll see…

  48. NikFromNYC
    September 18, 2014 at 5:07 am
    “…if Mann were really scientifically supported by so many scientific bodies, for real, it wouldn’t be a free speech issue at all, just libel.”
    To extend the point, any scientific (or pseudoscientific) organization around is free to file an amicus dealing only with the science aspects of the case. They can state, “We take no position on the First Amendment implications as it is not our area of expertise. Regarding the relevant questions of science, however, we support Michael Mann’s position for the following reasons…”
    This sort of narrowly focused amicus brief is filed all the time, since amici tend to be specialists, not generalists. (Just like ACLU, etc. focused not on the science but on their expertise – the First Amendment.) Yet in this case we have nothing but crickets, and this communicates volumes as to what the scientific community – even the climate subset, even the CAGW subset! – thinks about Michael Mann’s version of science. By implication of course, it also says much about the community itself, since despite seeing Mannian pseudoscience as just that, it has every step of the way honored omerta über alles, on an issue which so many claim to be the most deadly and urgent Planet Earth has ever faced. Moral cowards up and down the line.

  49. “Doctor Fraudpants”? Disappointed a bit that you are stooping to their level and using Middle School name-calling tactics. Loved the rest of the information, though, and hope it does indeed mean the tide is turning.

  50. Babette,
    You don’t like “Dr. Fraudpants”?? That is Mark Steyn’s label [not Anthony’s], and I don’t blame Steyn one bit. Mann is the one who is suing him over hurt feelings. Personally, that one made me LOL.
    If you have seen even a small part of the really terrible things written about Anthony Watts on some other blogs, you would see what a mild and playful poke Steyn is taking at Mann.
    If Mann can’t take it, too bad. He has caused immense damage to science with his repeatedly debunked hockey stick chart, and his underhanded gaming of the climate peer review system. Anything that takes him down a notch is welcome, IMHO.

    • Mann wrote:

      In his Sept. 10 column, “Greenhouse gloom lacks factual basis,” James Barrante did a tremendous disservice by spreading falsehoods about the science of climate change. Dr. Barrante parroted baseless talking points that have their origin in fossil-fuel-industry-funded climate-change-denial propaganda, not honest scientific discourse.
      For example, Dr. Barrante’s claim that the globe hasn’t warmed during the past 15 years is such a shopworn myth that it ranks among the top 10 debunked denier talking points (see http://www.skepticalscience.com /global-warming-stopped-in-1998. htm) by the scientist-run website Skeptical Science.

  51. It’s welcome news, yet the chosen quote rankles. To people unfamiliar with the case (i.e. to most people), a lead-in that refers to “defending Mann” gives the impression that Mann is under attack. Which is precisely the impression Mann wishes to convey. It’s false of course; Mann is the one mounting this legal attack, Styn is the defendant, and freedom of the press is what’s under attack.
    The PR attempt to equate supporting Mann’s lawsuit with defending science, has failed. Very welcome news.

Comments are closed.