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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/take-no-shit-copy.jpg
“…and left Mann out standing in his field.”
I’m glad you put that space in there.
Josh could have some fun with this.
The Climate Clown performing with his hockey stick before a crowd of empty seats.
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.
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….
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.
….and this is even more amazing when you consider that surely they would have been actively seeking amicus briefs.
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.
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.
Mark Steyn,
Thanks for this lovely popcorn moment in the inane comedy that is Michael Mann’s scorched earth legal strategy.
John
Finally, they’ll through the baby out, and save the bath water.
The Mann has delusions of adequacy.
Seems none from Team IPCC ™ is willing to defend the indefensible, under oath.
“The Barbra Streisand Effect on Steroids” http://www.steynonline.com/6566/the-barbra-streisand-effect-on-steroids. Gotta love Steyn’s wit.
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.
Make that Steyn and the others, not Mann and the others. Sheesh, where’s that coffee when you need it?
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.
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:
But in what way will he hide the decline this time?
Mike’s Un–Nature-al trick?
“Reply: A bridge, nay a continent too far. Seriously…I can never unread that. Never. ~ctm”
Perhaps you meant “an incontinent too far”
Methinks he doth prostate too much.
Spartacus and every single one of his followers were crucified in the end……..
The survivors were. But he was not a survivor.
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.
Bluff, called, a house of cards, pfff!, blowing down.
You have 0 friends
“Doctor Fraudpants”!! I love it! 😀
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?
Dr. Fraudpants. Love repeating that.
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