Michael Mann lawsuit appeal to be streamed live today

DC-court

Thanks to the miracle of the Internet, we can listen to the proceedings of the Mann vs. CEI appeal live today via webcast. This is audio only, no video, but it may have some entertainment value.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) appeal of the Michael Mann lawsuit against CEI will be argued this morning in the D.C. Court of Appeals. For those wanting to watch live, you may tune into the Ceremonial Courthouse livestream at 9:30 a.m. ET: http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/appellate/oralargs.jsf

Below is a statement from CEI general counsel Sam Kazman.

CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:

“Regardless of where one stands on global warming, this case is about the First Amendment. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit is an unfounded attempt to chill speech on a major issue of public concern. Professor Mann is a high-profile figure in the global warming debate, and he himself is responsible for much of the overheated rhetoric in that debate. His complaint about CEI’s criticism of his statistical methods belongs in the arena of public discussion and scientific inquiry, not in the courts.

“This is precisely the type of First Amendment lawsuit that the District of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP law was designed to stop at the outset, and it is for this reason that CEI and National Review’s position is supported by a wide range of amici, including the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cato Institute, and dozens of other organizations. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will agree.”

 

Advertisements

260 thoughts on “Michael Mann lawsuit appeal to be streamed live today

  1. “Professor Mann is a high-profile figure in the global warming debate, and he himself is responsible for much of the overheated rhetoric in that debate.”
    ————————
    Apparently, Mr. Kazman is skilled at understatement.

  2. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will agree.

    It should agree. The use of legal threats to suppress freedom of speech is exactly the sort of thing that the US constitution is meant to prevent.
    But I’m not hopeful that the Court of Appeals will agree.
    I have a low opinion of American lawyers and their integrity. Money talks.

    • Not even Shakespeare thought too highly of English courts. While greed in the legal process is no doubt a factor, it’s the idealogues on the bench who give sight to the eyes of blind justice.

    • “I have a low opinion of American lawyers and their integrity. Money talks.”.
      But our politicians are mostly lawyers (oh – never mind).

    • As a long-retired lawyer, may I politely disagree? Lawyers represent their clients as best that they can. Most of them never see a courtroom. I agree that the plaintiff’s bar sometimes push the limits, but it is the courts that allow (even encourage) them to do so. Look to the bench, not the bar, as a source of the problem.

      • Jonathan Swift had many uncomplimentary things to say about the legal profession and judges in particular (not the legal system in the US necessarily), for example:
        “… these judges are persons appointed to decide all controversies of property, as well as for the trial of criminals, and picked out from the most dexterous lawyers, who are grown old or lazy; and having been biassed all their lives against truth and equity, lie under such a fatal necessity of favouring fraud, perjury, and oppression, that I have known some of them refuse a large bribe from the side where justice lay, rather than injure the faculty, by doing any thing unbecoming their nature or their office …” (Gulliver’s Travels 1726).

      • So sir what do we do about that? We could elect different people who appoint judges, that would probably mean electing few lawyers, or if judges are elected, we could elect different people to the bench, that probably means electing few lawyers. Well anything that means fewer lawyers can’t be all bad.

      • Jim Brock
        If what you’re saying is lawyers do break the rules, but it’s the fault of the US Government (judges) because they fail to provide proper adult supervision, then that’s yet another problem.
        The missing ingredient is “ethics”; some (not all) lawyers simply don’t have any, and are simply self serving…and lots of bad lawyer behavior takes place away from the view of a judge.

      • Judges are lawyers as well. Why was there no tort reform pertaining to the medical field? Why is big money able to bury justice in every law field; criminal law, family law, etc. Why is there no detailed ideas from lawyers to reform the system, and greatly expedite the process, as well as make it more effective in pursuit of justice?

      • Looking at court interpretations of insane arguments, there’s not much difference in “from the bar” or “at the bar” these days.

  3. Much of the nation’s media (and the ACLU) have filed amicus briefs in favor of the defendent (CEI). It seems that Mann has goofed up. This should not be too long a hearing, because it seems that the trial court judge goofed up too.

  4. I’m getting “status error” from the Appeal Court audio – and live video of a murder trial from the Ceremonial Court feed.
    Unless Mikey Mann has finally rum amok with his hockey stick – I guess I’m on the wrong feed 🙂

  5. DC Circuit is in the Progressive’s back pocket….. The Dems loaded the DC Circuit when they resorted to the Nuclear Option for Judicial appointee’s!

    • All court proceedings are public domain, unless the judge orders the transcript of the proceedings sealed. Grand jury proceedings that return an indictment are sealed from public access. IIRC.

    • All court proceedings are public documents, unless the judge orders the proceedings sealed. But that only applies to criminal cases. This is a civil suit. You may have to pay a fee to obtain printed docs.

  6. Have been watching, gave up now. The judges are obviously not impartial – they are clearly on Mann’s side. This is a sham.

    • As was pointed out before, Obama and Harry Reid have been working for years to pack this Court with hard-line “Progressive” judges. This is why people who think this issue isn’t political are wrong – you may not care about Politics, but Politics cares about you, and Politics is all about putting your people in power to force rulings to come down in the way you want them.
      And one of the consequences of the last 6 years of our governance is that now the Judiciary is just the third purely political branch. Remember, Joe Romm’s boss is Obama’s personal counselor. Mann isn’t going to lose; our new Emperor has decreed it to be so.
      If you want to change things, the Emperor has to be taken down from his perch first.

      • Wrong Court. This is essentially a state level appeals court for DC. Not the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

    • I don’t hold out much hope, given the ideological composition of the court, but it’s also the case that you can’t always tell how a judge is going to rule based upon his or her questions to counsel.

      • McIntyre and associates dissected Mann’s work in exquisite and sometimes excruciating detail and with devastating thoroughness. Evidently, icouldnthelpit is a joke.

      • All the questions about Mann come back to McIntyre. If McIntyre was wrong then he has ruined the litigious Mann’s career, wrongly.
        But the litigious Mann does not sue McIntyre. He does not test take the chance of silencing his greatest critic by proving him wrong.
        His colleagues explained why in the Climategate emails. They all knew that Mann was wrong, not McIntyre.
        And Mann knows that too. Else he would sue McIntyre.

      • The demonstration of hockey stick fraud does not turn on the MacIntyre/McKitrick statistical refutation. It turns upon the contents of Michael Mann’s own, ‘back to 1400 CENSORED’ directory.
        That directory has direct evidence that Mann’s MBH98/99 reconstructions failed at least one of his own verification tests.
        Mann did the test, had the results indicating failure, can only have known the reconstructions failed, neither reported nor published the failed test, and went ahead and published anyway. Then he lied before Congress about having done the test.
        What word would you assign to describe that process?

    • Ah, but Mann’s entire argument is that the Government has said that his work is true and correct and therefore the citizenry must accept it as true and correct. The trouble for Mann with this argument is that the Government (NOAA specifically) has also said that it is perfectly acceptable for Mann to use the word fraud when criticizing other climate scientists because the word fraud is a common expression within the community of scientists. So if Mann is making an appeal to authority as the basis of his argument, then he has been hoisted on his own petard.

        • And you are wrong again. Mann’s argument is that he was intentionally defamed. An accusation of fraud is not defamation unless 2 things can be proven. It is clearly false (that will be almost impossible to prove) and the person issuing the declaration knew that it was proven false.

      • icouldnthelpit said it is the end of it ,and so it is the end of it, haven’t you learned anything at all ? Never ever disagree with a warmist. They don’t like to have discussions. That is the end of it.

      • icouldnthelpit :
        You assert

        mpaul – Mann’s argument is that he’s been accused of fraud. Don’t lose sight of that. It’s not really that complicated.

        Mann has NOT been “accused of fraud”. It has rightly been said that his ‘hockeystick’ graph is “fraudulent”.
        The graph is clearly “fraudulent” in that it misleads by conjoining different data sets, selecting misleading data (omitting data in the “CONFIDENTIAL” file, including inverted Tiljander, etc.), hiding the decline’, adopting a novel and faulty statistical method, etc..
        If Man is asserting that “he’s been accused of fraud” then he has to prove that those who point to the gross and misleading errors in the fraudulent graph are claiming
        (a) the errors were not incompetence
        but
        (b) the errors were deliberately intended to deceive.
        This seems to be too “complicated” for you to understand it.
        Richard

    • Your attacks are ad hominem – you don’t attack the arguments, you attack the person.
      Pretty sad. So typical. Like Mann.
      John

      • Well, I read Montford’s book. I guess you would attack him too. I don’t know how you could be more detailed and specific than that book. People need to refute those facts I think. And they can’t.

      • Having read through it carefully I thought the refutation was extremely thorough and careful. I particularly liked their analysis of Mann’s short centered PCA trick an indefensible mathematical method, and the part where they used Mann’s methods to generate hockeysticks from random noise was beautiufully done and cut right to the heart of the matter. While I enjoyed the mathematical bits the best, their critique of Mann’s handling of data was also excellent if you like that sort of thing, particularly with regard to the use of strip bark bristlecone pine data and the strange goings on with Yamal.
        I assume you have read M&M’s paper since you seem to have a strong opinion on it. What about M&Ms work do you find so humorous?

      • icouldnthelpit,
        care to explain exactly what the peer review process does?
        Hint, not what you seem to think it does.

      • icouldnthelpit:
        I have refuted your daft attempt at defending Michael Mann. However, my refutatation is stuck in moderation probably because it addresses your untrue claim that Mann has been accused of the f word.
        If my refutation does come out of moderation then it will probably be here.
        Richard

    • Is Mann’s claim to being a Nobel laureate fraudulent? It’s free speech for him to make that claim, you know, so I’m not particularly bothered about that — it made a good laugh. But can the Nobel Committee sue Mann for defamation, for tainting the prestige of the Nobel Prize?
      Steyn has already quoted a number of scientists (in the warming camp, mind you) who said not so nice things about Mann’s work, if you bother to look them up.

    • OK, “I couldn’t help it,” maybe I don’t understand the meaning of fraudulent. McIntyre showed that Mann’s algorithm produces a hockey stick, even when random numbers are input. How is Mann’s algorithm not fraudulent? Isn’t it fraud whenever “science” produces a result based on thin air? How is this different from just making up data?
      Isn’t using an algorithm that makes up the result for you is the same as using a good algorithm with bogus inputs?
      What am I missing here?

      • I’m not lawyer, but for fraud in the criminal sense, I think you need to show an intention to deceive and that a financial gain will be made as a result. However, the case appears to hinge on whether it is “scientific fraud”, which seems to be being interpreted as “not the best of standards” – perhaps akin to “diving” in football (pretending you’ve been fouled).

      • You are missing everything. Suppose you believe you found an arcane system of how to predict the numbers at a game of roulette – except for that everybody with 5 Cents worth of education could tell that you must be insane… So it doesn’t work, ok. If something does not work, it is really just that, and not somehow fraudulent, unless you show that it has been fraudulent.
        Mann thought he was up to something, except for it turned out that he wasn’t, if we go by what you have offered in your comment. So yeah, you should revisit the meaning of ‘fraud’.

      • It is best to avoid using words like fraud that have a specific legal meaning. Lawyers have spent the last 200 years defining and redefining and arguing about every nuance in the meaning of the word fraud.

      • FM –
        Basically veryone avoided the OTHER thing they might have called Mann, and I think everyone was avoiding it out of some sort of respect.
        When Mann’s PC methodology was shown to produce hockey sticks pretty much no matter the data input, what McIntyre showed that Mann basically was over his head on the statistics, allowing Mann to think he was doing things correctly but not knowing the difference between proper statistical method and crap.
        In any other discipline that is known as not knowing your ass from a hole in the ground.
        Therefore, the term that everyone could be using about Mann is “Stupid”. It is only fraud if you KNOW it id wrong and still use that method. Which Pat Frank pointed out at 2:53: Mann DID find out that the method was crap, but then went ahead with it, anyway. So, is that stupidity or fraud?
        All of that, however, is moot. CEI is appealing this as a freedom of speech issue, making it a Constitutional question. Based on things I’ve read about this case, especially some of the amicus briefs, Mann doesn’t have a foot to stand on. If there is precedent – and it looks like there is – the appeals court judges have no recourse but to follow precedence. They can’t invent new law in contravention of precedence. Some people think the judges can do such invention, but not so.

    • Even Judith Curry says no.

      Here’s part of what Judith Curry did say

      In a scientific or professional context, ‘fraud’ is inferred to refer to research misconduct, which is characterized by falsification, fabrication and/or plagiarism. I don’t think that this is the case with regards to Mann’s hockey stick, and Steve McIntyre has said previously that he doesn’t think so either. …
      Nevertheless, accusations of data cherry picking and flawed statistical analyses and interpretations seem to be justified.

      If you define fraud as Judith Curry did then you would indeed say that Mann did not fabricate, falsify or plagiarise.
      Judith Curry also said:

      ‘Fraud’ is generally a different beast than ‘scientific misconduct.’ Scientific misconduct is typically motivated by career advancement; fraud is motivated by inducing someone to act.
      This situation may be the single most compelling reason for scientists not be issue advocates regarding their scientific research – efforts to induce other to act need to be very careful that they do not mislead the public.
      I think Mann’s advocacy is a new angle in interpreting the issue of ‘fraud’; I look forward especially to the take on this from the lawyers among the denizens.

      I would interpret that as saying that perhaps we should say that Mann is guilty of fraud.
      http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/

      • This silly warmist who calls himself ‘icouldnthelpit’ ramblse on about red noise without having the slightest clue about the issues. Uses it like a buzz-word and hopes it means something. Just like ‘peer review’ ..
        These kind of activists are a dozen a dime. They get their fodder from some warmist-activist blog, and think repeating phrases they picked up there constitutes an ‘argument’. Quite a sad lot.
        There really isn’t any at all. The catch phrase here is that ‘McI:s red noise is awful/funny’ .. allegedly!
        So, dear ‘icouldnthelpit’, care to explain how ‘red noise’ or what else you say relates to anything at all, how it helps Manns original stick and somehow erases allt the problems with the Mannian sticks? Rescues its validity?
        Or was it really just the words sallad it looked like?

      • I hear all of what you just said, but I would disagree with Judith Curry, as much as I respect her. On the points about “Scientific misconduct is typically motivated by career advancement; fraud is motivated by inducing someone to act”, I think this flies in the face of the large increase of scientific fraud that has been occurring in the last few years.
        Let’s begin with the simple fact that fraud is a subset of misconduct. Thus all fraud is misconduct, but not all misconduct is fraud.
        Therefore, to say X about misconduct and Y about fraud is to simply miss the simple fact that fraud IS misconduct. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract “Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications” Fang et al 2012:

        Abstract
        A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.

        The basic case of Mann’s work came down to the question of Correct? Error? or Fraud?
        McIntyre decided in his paper that Mann was at the least in error, because he clearly showed that Mann did choose to use a statistical method that produced the same kind of curve no matter the data input into it. McIntyre’s work was later vetted successfully, making Mann’s work total crap. NO ONE has found McIntyre to have been in error himself about Mann’s work.
        That brings it down to Error or Fraud?
        But NONE of that is what this appeal is about. The appeal is about the First Amendment right of free speech. THAT has much precedence in the courts, so the case is going to have little to add to the history of free speech cases. Either the court will decide that Mann was a public figure or Mann wasn’t, and based on that, was Mann fair game like other public figures. That is what I’ve seen from what I’ve read of the case in court. If I am right, all of the amicus briefs will show to be correct, and the CEI will win the appeal.
        If CEI does NOT win this appeal, I expect them to appeal it “all the way to the Supreme Court” – and they SHOULD, IMHO, because Mann IS a public figure, and all the past precedence is in their favor. It doesn’t make any difference the makeup of this appeals court, I don’t think, because of the conservative lean in SCOTUS.
        At that level, Mann will lose.

      • Mann did advocate based on his science. He pressured governments, he wrote articles for newspapers, and he hassled publishing papers for and against other scientists as well as how various things should be viewed.
        So he has two things happening. He’s created poor science. And he’s advocated strongly that society must change based on his science.

      • commieBob:
        There seems to be a confusion.
        Mann’s ‘hockeystick’ graph can be “fr@udulent” but Mann not a fr@ud.
        The graph clearly is “fr@udulent” in that it purports to be evidence for a change when it is not. But that does not mean Mann must have been a fr@ud to have presented it: he may have believed the graph was genuine.
        Similarly, a forged $10 note is fr@udulent in that it purports to represent a cash value that it does not. But that does not mean a person must have been a fr@ud to have presented it: he may have believed the note was genuine.
        The problem for Mann is that if he recognised the graph was fr@udulent then his presentation of it was fr@ud, but if he did not recognise that then his presentation of it was incompetence.
        Richard

      • Commie Bob, the problem with Curry’s and McIntyre’s feelings on the matter are that Mann could not have gotten the results he did without INTENTIONALLY creating those algorithms to do what they did. If he had used standard statistical methods, he wouldn’t have had a paper to publish. It’s blatantly obvious that Mann did things on purpose, and not through incompetence. He did exactly what he wanted to do when he overweighted bristlecone pine cores 491x greater than any other proxy, thus making only those cores have any value in the paper. His co-authors are just as culpable for whatever you want to call it.

      • icouldnthelpit
        Read the whole article. Judith Curry is clear that although Mann may not have committed a narrowly defined version of fraud, he did act with intent to deceive.


        Nevertheless, accusations of data cherry picking and flawed statistical analyses and interpretations seem to be justified.

        I think Mann’s advocacy is a new angle in interpreting the issue of ‘fraud’; I look forward especially to the take on this from the lawyers among the denizens.

      • “…there is no need for Steyn et al. to ‘prove’ fraud in court; but merely to legitimize a public statement of ‘Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick‘ as not defamatory.” – Curry. The easier thing to do I think.

    • Could you please explain why the UN IPCC, which so widely trumpeted Mann’s Hockey Stick, suddenly relegated it to the dustbin of history? Because it was such a stellar piece of work that held up rock solid under scrutiny?

      • I could help it……spelling intended….
        No one asked you to second guess anything.
        Explain…….if you understand……Explain why the IPCC dropped the flacid stick.
        Go ahead and explain why…..only though, if you understand why the IPCCstopped using the flacid stick of Mann.
        If you dont understand….waive your arms and make up some nonresponsive reply again.

    • Don’t bother replying to ‘icouldnthelpit’, i’m sure it’s just another of Appell’s sock puppet accounts. Fraudulent.

  7. Well, the court has now risen. And it ended with some good,passionate stuff from Steyn’s Amicus.He really stuck it to Mann I guess.

  8. Did they manage to find a court room big enough to fit Mann’s ego in , or is he there only there in the legal sense ?

    • I didn’t see or hear either Mann or Steyn. Cameras were just of the bench or speaking lawyer (when they were working – lots of loss of transmission or bandwidth issues)

      • Steyn was there, he just looks older than his picture on the blog, less red. He is about in the middle in the bank of seats behind the NR lawyers about 5th row or so.

  9. Mann’s lawsuit is surreal.
    It is an attempt at incompetence,
    to conceal.
    Against this lawsuit the defendants,
    rather than appeal.
    Should demand that the court
    tell the plaintiffs.
    Take your lawsuit,
    and repeal.
    And do something else with it that I can’t get to rhyme.

    • Oh, now you’ve done it, Tom J. As I posted at BH a little while ago …
      There was a crooked Mann who walked a crooked mile
      At the drop of a virtual puck, a lawsuit he would file
      From the safety of his keyboard, how he would primp and preen
      Wallowing in his ignorance of how he was rightly seen.
      This crooked little Mann indeed was far from lean
      In his copious outpourings little truth was there to glean
      Perhaps best known to all as a tweeting huffer and puffer
      He did not care one bit that his rep would further suffer
      This crooked little Mann had built some crooked little moats
      From which he’d lurk and lob his self-inflated gloats
      But when the time arose to defend his suits and preens
      This crooked little Mann in court, alas, was nowhere to be seen!

    • I did not hear anything particularly encouring in that interview. Steyn even suggested that the case was being side tracked by looking at the splice between tree ring data, and the thermometer record and what size of footnote one should make when making such slice.

      • Ragnaar –
        The Hockey Stick SHOULD be the main target of climate skeptics. It alone was the primary reason that I got into the skeptics camp in the first place. Why? Just a cursory glance at the hockey stick curve revealed that Mann had done something VERY odd, in that he had erased both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. I looked at that flat, slightly descending curve and asked “WTF did they do to the MWP and the LIA?!!!!”
        When one produces a work that simply blows off existing reality – one that STILL exists everywhere except in the minds of die-hard warmists – OF COURSE people are going to be skeptical.
        In producing that hockey stick, Mann had a responsibility to explain what he had done to the MWP and the LIA and why they should not be still used. This Mann never did, and in NOT doing so, he has brought upon him all the skepticism that has occurred.
        From what I’ve seen of his work, he actually doesn’t believe that the MWP and LIA were real. In doing so, Mann TOOK – and continues to take – an extreme and extraordinary position. And in taking that position, Mann SHOULD HAVE BEEN required to give an extraordinary explanation for his extraordinary claim – that the MWP and the LIA never existed.
        One of my perplexities about both warmists and skeptics is that no one has ever demanded that he explain his erasure of the MWP and LIA. BOTH camps should have asked him back in 1998 why they shouldn’t consider his work total CRAP.
        I read once where “Skepticism is the default position of science.” I agree. Both camps should be skeptical about Mann’s hockey stick, as a matter of form. One real question is why the warmists AREN’T.

      • Steve Garcia:
        However this case goes, the Hockey Stick isn’t the most important thing nor is Mann. I had an idea once that Mann has distracted the skeptics from whatever it is they should be doing.

      • after reading your posts, I think many here feel that way as well…your total lack of self-awareness is amusing..

  10. Whether or not the case is sidetracked depends on where you think the track is headed.
    Simberg — more or less a science journalist — and his publisher CEI want the track to go to the SCIENCE. They want an (or, another) investigation into Mann and Mann’s methods. They believe, (sincerely, it seems to me) that Mann’s work is incorrect, and that previous scientific critiques have been, er sidetracked. In the particular instance, Simberg believes, apparently sincerely, that Penn State’s investigations were sidetracked by the celebrity and fund-raising success of Mann, and child molester Jerry Sandusky, in the very similar fashion.
    Steyn, breaking from his publisher NRO, is more or less a radio disk jockey. He wants the track to go to the FREE SPEECH question. He is concerned about the right for critics and reviewers to say a band sounds like they were on drugs, or an actress must have been selected due to her performance on the couch, or other rather scurrilous, if funny, things about the personalities, particularly public figures, in the news and spotlight. Steyn’s track doesn’t care if the target is science, policy, or music. He fights for the right to critique, using language such as “circus” and “fraudulent” hyperbolically.

      • Steyn in the post hearing interview commented several times that he had made a charge of fraud, and he commented that he had done this for many many years without ever (before) being sued.
        It seems to me that there is little doubt that Mann’s work is incorrect. Everyone tacitly accepts that to be the case and that is the reason why the IPCC no longer runs with it as its poster child.
        However, there is a world of difference between being incorrect and being fraudulent. There is even a world of difference between believing that one is probably incorrect and being fraudulent.
        Does Mann now know (or appreciate) that he was incorrect, or probably incorrect, a reasonable person would conclude yes he must do.
        Did Mann know at the time? Well that is where the debate centres. Obviously he was aware of the divergence, he was a ware of the need to perform a splice and perform the ‘nature trick’ But is that sufficient to suggest that the work he presented was fraudulent? Personally, I have my doubts, given the legalstic definition and meaning of fraud.
        Obviously, a diligent scientist would have been intrigued by the divergence issue. He would immediately want to know why it was occurring, and whether it was real, or whether it was simply an artefact of the data. he would have carried out an investigation and reported upon its findings and the conclusions that should be drawn from the investigation.
        Once Mann was aware of the divergence issue, he knew that one of three things was happening, namley that thermometer record was not accurate, or that the tree ring reconstruction was not accurate (perhaps because trees are not thermometers), or that it was due to a combination of both.
        Had he adhered to proper principles of science, he would undoubtedly in his paper noted the divergence issue and addressed that in his paper. After all, at the very least, the divergence issue raises issues of error bands, and what error bands he should place on his cobbled together reconstruction.
        It is apparent that Judith Curry has had real problems in deciding which way the cookie crumbles, and I understand her dilemna. What Mann did clearly lacked scientific integrity, and is a misleading presentation, and it boarders on being fraudulent, but whether one can reasonably say that it crosses the latter threshhold is, in my opinion, far from clear.
        From a legalistic point of view, whilst I am a staunch supporter of free speech, I do not consider that one can expect to accuse someone of fraud, without expecting there to be ramifications.
        The problem as I see it is that Steyn could have made the same points almost as forcefully, but slightly toned down his langauge. For example, he could have said that it is tantamount to fraud, or boarders upon being fraudulent, or perhaps even from a scientific perspective is fraudulent etc thereby placing a slight caveat on the accusation. It is the strength of language and the clarity of the accusation that is the problem. The thrust of what Steyn was suggesting would appear sound as demonstrated by tha fact that the IPCC no longer uses the Mann reconstruction as the front cover of its Reports. .

      • In fact accusing people of fraud is what people should do if they see fraud and is exactly what Jose Duarte has done to Lew. Lew is slightly cannier than Mann and refuses to rise to it.
        The truth is always a defence in defamation cases.

      • Fraud
        “wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.”
        One could argue which part of the defination applys to so many of the global warmists.
        But Mann was one of the first to put his name to what has commonly called the “global warming fraud”.

  11. Everyone needs to remember that the scientific issues are largely irrelevant to Mann’s libel case. I doubt the science will even be considered by the trial court, if it gets that far. And it certainly won’t be considered by this court, which is deciding an appeal to the trial court ruling denying the defense motion to dismiss the libel case under DC’s anti-SLAPP law (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Persons). The grounds for the appeal are factual errors by the original trial judge.
    Also keep in mind Mann’s original libel suit is not because anyone said his science was bad or fraudulent, but because a comparison was made between the Penn State investigation of Mann’s science with an earlier Penn State investigation of Jerry Sandusky (PSU football coach and convicted child molester). Mann took this as a libelous comparison of himself to Jerry Sandusky.
    Since then, Steyn has separated himself as a defendant in the libel suit and filed his own countersuit against Mann for attempting to suppress his First Amendment rights of free speech. National Review and CEI are delaying responding to Mann’s discovery motions pending final outcome of the original dismissal motion. Steyn has dropped out of this particular appeal and complied with Mann’s discovery motions. Mann is delaying responding to Steyn’s discovery motions pending the results of this hearing.
    In all this mess there are two things everyone should understand: (1) scientific merits of global warming in general and Mann’s proxy research in particular are not at issue. Not now and likely not ever. (2) Steyn is the only party in all these interrelated disputes ready and willing to actually go to trial on the substantive issues.

      • You must be from overseas – America’s libel laws are very lax and, in the case of public figures, virtually nonexistent. The only reason that Mann is suing is to cause a great deal of time and expense to his opponents; so called “lawfare”.
        Basically, in America, if the speech is hyperbole, or satire, or political, and the target of the speech is a “public figure”, then there is almost zero chance of winning a case.

      • Mann has called many another fraud. Of course, the EPA said that in the scientific context it’s OK. Fraud in the legal sense is a serious accusation, no doubt, but outside of strictly legal contexts, especially in political commentaries (which are arguably even less rigorous than scientific contexts), it amounts to only the opinion of the writer, not an accusation of crime. Nice try, icouldnthelpit.

    • It never was about the science. Steyn has won the case and is just awaiting that in writing. Mann’s hockey stick – the icon of the IPCC – has been found to be a deception and Mann himself is now out on a limb and being shunned. And the press will do what the press alwasys do: hype it all up out of proportion until Mann looks like a master criminal and the whole of science is discredited. And sceptics will do what they always do: criticise the press for failing to report the science.
      And the public will do what they always do: read about it when the press run with it tut tut about the scandal and ask how it ever happened and then by the next week most of the public will have forgotten about it.

        • If you are talking about Wayne Gretzky’s, you are correct. if you are talking about Mann’s, you are incorrect. it has never been replicated. The other ones created were all using different metrics and data. And all failed as has been documented.

      • icouldnthelpit

        The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times with different data sets and different methods.

        Please provide the references. For simplicity just six will do, a mere half of a dozen.
        Or any to begin with.
        So long as it’s creator thinks it’s robust.

      • “The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times with different data sets and different methods. Do keep up.”
        icouldnthelpit,
        Firstly the old saying “right answer + wrong method = bad science” very much applies, even if his results had been correctly replicated.
        Secondly, his results were only STRICTLY “replicated” (ie exact same results) in the sense that MM05 (and even Wahl and Ammanns follow up) showed that in order to get his results you had to:
        a) pad the Gaspe data series to make sure it was included in a particular early period (where the non-padded part for the period only consisted of 1-2 tree cores anyway, far too few for any signal not to be swamped by noise) which without the padding would not have been included by his stepwise algorithm – and this entire custom padding of the data was not mentioned in his paper. It came out as “supplementary information” after MM03 had been initially unable to replicate his results
        b) use an incorrect PCA algorithm (which man initially used, where the PC1 was selected because it accounted for most of the variance using his wrong centering), or use a corrected PCA algorithm (Wahl and Ammannn) and include more PC’s down to number 4, where now the claim is that the 4th PC (representing less of the signal than the prior 3) is temperature (ie whatever the other 3 more important things affecting the core width were they were not temperature)
        Later studies have shown much more temperature variability than MBH. The flat stick of MBH has very much NOT been replicated dozens of times with different datasets and methods.

      • @Ican’t, sorry misread,@ Icouldnot, I’ll try to be nice, as long as the warmists base their strangely now even denied by the IICP. “Models” ( witch I learned 45 years ago are not real that is why they are called “models”), are these “models” based on the same things we see in store fronts? You know those “Real models” that look like the girl you want to get but never will? It seems like you are on that quest as well.

      • I’m back. None has it right.
        I also note that the Wikipedia links do not support Mann’s hockeystick anymore than they contradict it.
        For example this quote from the abstract to How Warm Was the Medieval Warm Period? Thomas J. Crowley1 and Thomas S. Lowery2 (AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 29(1):51-54. 2000).

        Despite clear evidence for Medieval warmth greater than present in some individual records, the new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions and, furthermore, indicates that maximum Medieval warmth was restricted to two-three 20–30 year intervals, with composite values during these times being only comparable to the mid-20th century warm time interval.

        Which sounds a lot like the 20th century – even the composite ending up in the middle.
        Not at all a robust support for Mann’s hockeystick. Even with the words “new hemispheric composite supports the principal conclusion of earlier hemispheric reconstructions” it just doesn’t, does it?

      • icouldnthelpit
        November 26, 2014 at 5:48 am
        What a joke, you could not even bother mentioning which papers you think prove Steve’s arguments wrong. So now we should guess what you are thinking, having problems with magic thinking are you? In addition, you seem have pretty awful understanding of science works. Waste of time and space as I said.

  12. …The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times with different data sets and different methods…
    Well, now we’re going to find out if that propaganda can stand up to scrutiny in a court, rather than relying on shills repeating it without any evidence…

      • Amici for Steyn, CEI, Simberg and NR include: American Civil Liberties Union, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, American Society of News Editors, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia, the Association of American Publishers, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., the Center for Investigative Reporting, the First Amendment Coalition, First Look Media Inc., Fox News Network, Gannett Co. Inc., the Investigative Reporting Workshop, the National Press Club, the National Press Photographers Association, Comcast Corporation, the Newspaper Association of America, the North Jersey Media Group Inc., the Online News Association, the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Seattle Times Company, the Society of Professional Journalists, Stephens Media LLC, Time Inc., Tribune Publishing, the Tully Center for Free Speech, D.C. Communications, Inc. and the Washington Post.
        How many amici for Mann?

      • Mike, is that you?
        You seem rather over-wrought and we all know how much of a tantrum Mike can chuck.

      • Scottish Sceptic November 25, 2014 at 3:03 pm
        “Amici for Steyn,…”

        The amici are amicus curiae – friends of the court. Not of any particular litigant. The court may set a precedent, and they have a legal POV that they want heard. It’s true that their POV generally aligns with the appeal, but they are not there for the appellants.

      • Quite an impressive list, don’t you think Nick? Can you imagine Mann’s feelings when he realized that he had antagonized the nation’s media?

    • Dodgy Geezer, I’ve been teasing icouldnthelpit over the fact that Mann can’t sue McIntyre because Mann knows McIntyre is right. He daren’t try to prove McIntyre wrong in court.
      And I suspect icouldnthelpit isn’t a Mann Fanboy, that would be quite weird when you think of it. I suspect icouldnthelpit is the Mann himself

      • I agree with David Smith that if MCourtney’s speculation that the identity of “icouldnthelpit” is Mann himself, it would be an exquisite confirmation of Mann’s rude, strident and now panicky behaviour in this and many other cases. I sense that Mann’s hitherto successful modus operandi (to silence critics by “lawfare”) has met it’s match in Mark Steyn and his legal team. I wish them every success in this current case and future success with their counter claim. Thank you Mark Steyn, I have contributed via Steyn gifts and will continue to do so.

    • I couldn’t help saying this but, even if the Hockey Stick has been replicated a gazillion times a gazillion, it sure as heck doesn’t manage to get even a little peek-a-boo in UN IPCC reports anymore. Care to speculate why?

      • I couldn’t help saying this but, even if the Hockey Stick has been replicated a gazillion times a gazillion, it sure as heck doesn’t manage to get even a little peek-a-boo in UN IPCC reports anymore. Care to speculate why?
        Hmmm . .
        Dropping Mann’s hockey stick from the IPCC reports could easily be explained/defended I think.
        They could merely point out that climate change is a broad science and there are many other ‘lines of evidence’ to be highlighted.
        Companies change or update their logos all the time.

      • Oooops . . formatting error up there^^:

        I couldn’t help saying this but, even if the Hockey Stick has been replicated a gazillion times a gazillion, it sure as heck doesn’t manage to get even a little peek-a-boo in UN IPCC reports anymore. Care to speculate why?

        Hmmm . .
        Dropping Mann’s hockey stick from the IPCC reports could easily be explained/defended I think.
        They could merely point out that climate change is a broad science and there are many other ‘lines of evidence’ to be highlighted.
        Companies change or update their logos all the time.

      • Raven, there is another reason they may have elected to no longer publish that piece of junk. They (the IPCC hockey team, Mann’s partners in crime, knew it was junk, and knew that the paleo studies they were forced to publish in faint support of it, were likewise junk. How do we know this?
        Because they said so in the climate gate emails, stating clearly that Mann should stop defending it, and they did not want to be associated with it, and they admitted that even their new studies told them zip about anything less then 100 year resolution periods, so thirty year swings were not relevant or captured.

      • “Companies change or update their logos all the time.”
        Raven, I don’t know of any companies that change, or update, or throw their logos under the bus after just a couple years. Unless, of course, the logo was misrepresentative. Can you name any subsequent research that the UN IPCC promoted as vociferously as they did the hockey stick?

  13. Who is bank- rolling Mike Mann throughout all of these legal shenanigans?
    Whose big green is financing Mann’s big bluster?

      • That sounds about right.
        Never mind, I’ll just go and speak to my contact at Big Oil and get him to give all of us sceptics a wad of cash to compensate for our stolen money.

  14. icouldnthelpit lives in his own universe with his own interpretation of reality, no point in trying to get sense from his gobbledygook.

  15. In Mann’s self-serving mythology, only he is allowed to be a heroic martyr; it is verboten in his vanity myth that his legal opponent can be a heroic martyr.
    John

  16. Is drawing an analogy from facts ever malicious or defamatory? Jerry Sandusky was accused of serious misconduct. Ditto a climate scientist, Michael Mann (DACSMM) Jerry Sandusky was investigated by Penn State. DACSMM, The investigation published results referring to the esteem in which Sandusky was held by his peers. DADCSMM. Etc.
    It is possible to take any two public figures and identify and publish lists of facts that apply to both. I could list a dozen things that humorist (among other careers) Mark Steyn has in common with (loathsome pornographer) Larry Flynt. Or that (Dr) Michael Mann has in common with (Dr) Jerry Falwell. Or that Steyn shares with Falwell and Mann shares with Flynt. Cherry picking the facts to serve a predetermined narrative is EASY, as Dr Mann and the folks who “replicate” his research must by now have proven to themselves.
    Is such an activity to be made subject to trial by jury to judge the validity of the comparisons or the motives of the fact-gatherer? If the facts are verifiable and true, does it matter whether or not the motives are malicious? If the motives are pure and sincere, does it matter that one of the dozen listed comparable facts may be incorrect? Would it matter if there were two such honest, unintentional, errors? Three? If the interests of the narrative writer are to be balanced against the rights of (both) the persons named in the narrative (This assumes Jerry Sandusky might not like being compared to a person who, mistakenly or fraudulently, claimed a trophy he did not in fact win, just as much as Mann might not like being compared to a child-rapist. This might not be a valid assumption. ) upon which side of the balance should the tolerance of error lie?

  17. I can understand the defendants’ desire to have the case dismissed before trial, it will save them substantial attorney’s fees and the risk of an adverse judgement. But if they lose the appeal, the case goes to trial and Mann will have to prove his case, including his case on global warming. He will be under oath, he will be questioned by defendants’ lawyers, his research will be open to question. This may be the first real opportunity for an honest, open debate about AGW. Mann has to prove that the defendants damaged his reputation, so, in a very real sense, Mann and his science are also on trial. Mann claims that defendants asserted that he was a fraud and a huckster. Defendants will (should) be given the opportunity to in fact, prove that Mann was a fraud and a huckster.
    I feel for the defendants, but a court trial, with Mann under oath, is something we should all be hoping for.

    • But if they lose the appeal, the case goes to trial and Mann will have to prove his case, including his case on global warming.

      You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? Even Mark Steyn wishes that were true. No, if the appellants lose the appeal then the original judge (not the original judge actually, but the judge of the original suit) will order both parties to respond to discovery, unless other procedural motions are made, or the denial of the appeal is appealed, which may require a special hearing to determine if an appeal can be made to the denial of an appeal of a denial of a dismissal motion under DC’s anti-SLAPP law, which is apparently so vague as to require multiple hearings to figure out what it really means. (Keep in mind the anti-SLAPP law was intended to expedite dismissal of meritless suits and the case has now entered year three; from the record it seems about equally effective to its putative purpose as the federal Paperwork Reduction Act).
      And discovery can drag on for quite a while as either party can claim the need for additional documents based on whatever they got in the first round.
      Once discovery is complete, additional motions can be filed (to dismiss, for summary judgement, etc.), all of which will require more briefs and more hearings.
      I’m simplifying of course. If you really want to see the process done to perfection, look at the suit
      SCO v. IBM regarding software rights to UNIX. I think all the gory details are still at Groklaw , but a much condensed summary can be found at Wikipedia :

      On March 6, 2003, the SCO Group … filed a $1 billion lawsuit in the US against IBM for allegedly “devaluing” its version of the UNIX operating system.

      In an order entered on 21 September 2007, Judge Kimball administratively closed the case of SCO v. IBM due to SCO filing for bankruptcy on 14 September 2007. This means that all action in SCO v. IBM is stayed until SCO emerges from bankruptcy proceedings. If and when it does, the case SCO v. IBM will resume where it left off.

      On March 30, 2010 the jury returned a verdict in SCO v. Novell, finding that Novell owns the copyrights.

      So the suit against IBM went from March 2003 to September 2007 and technically isn’t over; like a zombie it will rise whenever SCO emerges from bankruptcy.
      Mark Steyn is definitely right when he says in US courts, the process is the punishment.

    • The defendants in the case will also have rights of discovery, which will force Mann to turn over much of the material he has been hiding from FOIA requests for years.

  18. I’m of the opinion that icouldnthelpit is actually Barry Bickmore. Bickmore is always the one making hay out of Steyn (correctly) calling the Hockey Stick a ‘model.’ While it’s true that the HS is not a predictive model, there are (of course) other kinds of models. The HS is probably best described as a ‘reconstructive’ model, although I think technically it would fall under the rubric of conceptual models.

    • +1. The reality of global temperature distribution consists of the position and momentum of every molecule in the atmosphere at any point in time. Everything else is a model.

      • When you address forthrightly the deficiencies of climate models, then perhaps you will gain some credibility on the subject.

      • Steven,
        A fine example of how the corrupt endeavor of consensus “climate science” is dissolving the language and practice of all science.
        A molecule is a physical reality. It is not a model. It’s possible to model the structure of a molecule to test it against reality, but the predictions of climate models when so tested fail laughably miserably, so they don’t even come close to representing reality.
        Pity that you never studied science before presuming to pontificate upon its philosophy and practice. Such is the age in which we live.

  19. “fraud is motivated by inducing someone to act.”
    Mann guilty of fraud by this definition for inducing IPCC and the world to act to counter CO2 emissions.

  20. THE HOCKEY STICK
    There was a crooked Mann
    Who played a crooked trick
    And had a crooked plan
    To make a crooked stick
    By using crooked math
    That favored crooked lines
    Lysenko’s crooked path
    Led thru the crooked pines
    And all his crooked friends
    Applaud what crooked seems
    But all that crooked ends
    Derives from crooked means
    Eugene WR Gallun

  21. Eli , it was good of Mann to turn up, hopefully it is a sign that he realizes he is in trouble and needs to show some humility.
    Has he tweeted about it yet?
    Nick Stokes, are you sure about the “The amici are amicus curiae – friends of the court. Not of any particular litigant. The court may set a precedent, and they have a legal POV that they want heard”?
    If they are all attending for the appellant POV then it would seem they are friends of the appellants view. If another lot appeared on Mann’s side would they be enemies of the other friends?

    • “Nick Stokes, are you sure about the “The amici are amicus curiae”
      That’s their status. The list even includes the DC District Government. And no, they aren’t friends of Steyn, especially after what he’s been saying about their courts. They all turned up last time too, and DC felt obliged to say:
      “The District government takes no position whatsoever as to the merits of the underlying tort action in this case.”

      • What you carefully left unsaid is that fact that the amicus definitely are not friends of Mann but support the freedom of speech argument originally forwarded by Steyn.

      • Yes Pethin, that is what Nick seeks to obscure, as if it meant anything.
        Nick, these amicus briefs all support the legal position of the defendants, and Steyn is a defendant. It is a question of the law and these “amici” have taken a position antagonistic toward the cause of Mann. In this context, this position is amicable toward Steyn, who is in fact a member of the court. Your construction ignores this particular status of Steyn and the other defendants

      • Whatever their technical legal position in the case the entities in the list overwhelmingly favors Steyns position. Do you disagree yes or no? Obfuscation only supports your position if obfuscation is your position.

      • Nick appears to have this, errrmm, “quality” where he deliberately ignores relevant facts, is an expert at hand waving and leaving (Incovenient) stuff unsaid.

  22. Steyn has some interesting comments on the first day. He emphasizes that Mann does not show up in court for his own case as plaintiff. Does that matter? It seems to indicate a remarkable detachment, for a case that is supposedly all about his reputation. I don’t know how often plaintiffs don’t show up in court but I would have assumed he’d be there:
    Steyn on the first day at DC Court of Appeals

  23. It is great to see the list of media entities listed as amici. One hopes that they will exert salutary influences upon the court. This is a genuine First Amendment case even if the immediate context (for this appeal) is the Washington, DC “anti-SLAPP” statute.
    The absence of the NY Times in that list is an utter disgrace, particularly considering their historic role in the development of US libel law (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). Current NY Times officials passed over the opportunity to stand up for an important part of citizen freedoms in the US.

    • The NYT’s has become a pitiable rag. It’s not their progressive politics that bother me…after all it takes two sides to make a debate….but their utter lack of intellectual vigor. Their columnists are quite simply unreadable. Paul Krugman is especially unbearable.

  24. icouldnthelpit:
    Ask Lew; if there was no ‘hockey-stick’, would it still exist?
    Also ask him about Munchhausen’s syndrome make up a problem then find the fix for it and become a hero.

    • Man Bearpig,
      Several of my friends in Japan use the term ‘match-pump man’ approach. Such approach is to start a fire, then yell fire, lead the community to put out the fire then be declared the hero and get rewarded.
      John

      • Yep, sounds like Munchausen’s. How could this be done on a scientific basis. We could blame everything on our pet hypothesis then offer a simple solution. Whilst getting praise, worship and other idolisations.

  25. The Amicus Curiae briefs in US courts can be in support of the appellants or the plaintiff or in support of no party.
    The DC government filed “in support of no party”
    https://cei.org/sites/default/files/MANN%20Motion%20to%20File%20and%20Amicus%2011-22-13.pdf
    in practice their position favours the appellants (Steyn and CEI) since they want the appeals court to agree to juridisdiction over the appeal.
    The Reporter’s committee and 19 other organizations are supporting the appellants – again over jurisdiction
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/183982860/Amicus-brief-of-the-Reporters-Committee-for-Freedom-of-the-Press-pdf
    The ACLU filed in support of the appellants on appealability
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/184278542/Michael-Mann-v-National-Review-et-all-ACLU-amicus
    So some of the amici are supporting Steyn and others are just interested in the case.
    The judge in the court of first instance is clearly in the wrong on this. Hopefully the appeals court will “slap” her down.

    • Pretty much… except Steyn is not a party to the appeal. He is amici as well.
      A party not for either side is generally interested in the judicial process itself. Say that a judge is supposed to consider 3 things in a decision, but only considers 2. The losing party appeals. An outside group interested in the process, such as the Government itself, files a friend of the court brief arguing not that the plaintiff’s or defendant’s arguments for or against the merits of the case are wrong or right, instead they argue that the process that resulted in the decision was wrong regardless of what either side of the case presented (doesn’t matter who wins, as long as the correct process is followed).
      Here, the DC government and some others are just arguing that an Anti-SLAPP decision is immediately appealable. They don’t care who is appealing, just that they think such a decision in any case should be appealed immediately instead of waiting for the entire case to be heard and decided, then appeal and argue that the case should have been dismissed because of Anti-SLAPP. The whole reason for Anti-SLAPP is to stop a case at the start, before it gets expensive. This is why various outside parties want to make sure it is immediately appealable regardless of the merits of the argument in this particular case.
      One thing is for sure, everyone but Mann thinks that an Anti-SLAPP decision should able to be immediately appealed.

  26. As a 19 year member of the bench, I respectfully disagree with the many of the comments. Most judges do their best to apply the law to the facts of the case, and when they mess up, there are appellate courts to take a second look at the matter. Unfortunately most people get their knowledge of the legal system from the mass media, Hollywood, and the blogosphere. When I was in law school 30 years ago, I had a professor who had been a prosecuting attorney frequently say that if you were trying a case which was reported in the media, you would never believe it was the same case. Things have not changed much. If you do not believe me, you can visit Ferguson, Missouri. The people in the street there did not see the evidence which was presented to the grand jury, and never will. (Grand jury proceedings are confidential)

  27. Tom,
    May I approach the bench?
    Thanks Judge,,,
    Thing is here in Texas and many other states many judges are elected with “re-election money” .
    Too, in my home county (not to be named but where Larry McMurtry grew up) the elected county judge allowed the tax assessor collector who had embezzled $650,000 to buy a ranch with ,,,,, to simply sign a mortgage and pay the money back out of any profits.
    Senator Lyndon Johnson, later Pres. Johnson had some good paid up relationships with many judges too.
    Often the first meeting was via a check in the mail.

    • fobdangerclose,
      Nothing is more pernicious for the administration of justice than an elected judiciary. Consider, the renumeration of the members of the Texas legislature is set in theState CConstitution (1876) at $3 per diem.
      It is the same today. The legislature has never attempted to raise that figure (it would require a voter referendum on a change in the Constitution). But these legislators never lack for money. It is in this atmosphere and corruption that judges do their work. In this state, it is perfectly legal for an attorney to meet with a judge and pay him a cash campaign contribution, and receive from that judge later that same day a favorable ruling in court. The big Texas law firms, like Baker, Botts, each regularly contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars (US and Hong Kong, both) to the Texas judiciary (Baker, Botts bills hundreds of millions annually). Think twice before you litigate in Texas.

      • Pretty much the only people who contribute and vote in judicial races are attorneys.
        So it’s hardly surprising that no matter how lacking in merit, few if any worthless cases ever get thrown out.

  28. Serious question how many people here take seriously Steyn’s characterization of Mann as unscientific and the ringmaster of a tree-ring circus?
    Also do you believe the investigations of Mann and related investigations were a scandal whitewash and coverup?

    • Serious question: how many people there pretend they’re bunny rabbits?
      Isn’t that excessively juvenile? So is writing in the 3rd person.
      Another question for you: do you honestly believe that Mann’s ‘investigations’ were impartial?
      Are you aware that Mann was allowed to attend private meetings with tsome of the ‘investigators’, to help formulate which questions he would be asked? Are you aware that no adversaries were permitted, but only peoplle friendly to Mann?
      So the real question is: how many people here would not take seriously Steyn’s characterization of Mann as unscientific and the ringmaster of a tree-ring circus? Aside from you, that is?
      Serious questions. Please answer.

      • My avatar or gravatar is bushbunny. I took it on, as city slickers seem to think anyone who lives outside Sydney and in the bush (not outback) are somewhat out of the main stream of humanity and country bumpkins. Well we are in someways, some bushies have never traveled outside their State. I have and lived on three continents. In agrarian areas we take the climate very very seriously particularly rain fall. Especially if you live in rural area where one hasn’t got tap water from a mains, but rely on rainwater or irrigation for crops.
        However, to answer you question db, I am educated and have a degree and post grad certificate in archaeology and palaeoanthropology and ancient history. As soon as I heard the academy award and Noble prize was awarded to Al Gore, I nearly threw up. As I heard his well documented hypothesis on AGW, I knew from tertiary studies this was very wrong. Michael Mann’s tree ring climate change theory was something like a senior high school student would compile. It is very inaccurate and out of context, and for someone with his academic qualifications he must have known it was – if I knew it was, just a humble BA. He was paid to prove or give credence to the IPCC’s political agendas regarding human’s influence on the weather and climate in countries thousands of miles away. Yes cities pollute and create micro-climates of their own, or UHI.
        A cautionary saying for budding archaeologists and ancient historians. “Humans propose – but nature deposes (and kills us). If we can’t adapt to extreme weather events, and they happen regularly everywhere, we die. If we live near volcanoes expect eruptions. If we live over a subterranean fault line, we get earthquakes. And if the sun is active, we tend to get less rain because it diverts subatomic particles from reaching the earth and forming clouds.
        Anyone or most intelligent persons know this, and Michael Mann has deliberately corrupted the data to prove his hypothesis. And to me that is bordering on fraud, if he was paid to do it that way then it is fraud.

      • Mark Idle,
        OK, let me answer the question, then. ‘Eli’ asked:
        …how many people here take seriously Steyn’s characterization of Mann as unscientific and the ringmaster of a tree-ring circus?
        I do not take it seriously. Mark Steyn is a popular columnist. He is not masquerading as a scientist. He is parodying what many consider to be a charlatan — his 1st Amendment right. I don’t take it seriously either that Mann is much of a scientist. He certainly does not follow the Scientific Method, does he?
        Now, I know the 1st A is on the ropes, along with the rest of the Constitution. But it seems to me that if a columnist cannot express his views without threat of a lawsuit, then we will just have a lot fewer opinions over time. You want that?
        And I already answered the Wabbit’s other question: Mann was allowed to attend private meetings with tsome of the ‘investigators’, to help them formulate which questions he would be asked. I pesonally think that makes a mockery of the entire process.
        What do you think?

      • bushbunny,
        I hope you didn’t think I was replying to you. My response was intended for “Eli Rabbit”, AKA Joshua Halpern, charter member of our friendly Alarmist Cult.  ☺

    • 1) I do. All you have to do is look at the truncated tree ring line on the spaghetti graph to see the blatant deception and deceit, a trick to hide the decline, ie unscientific, nay anti-scientific behavior. Goes double for his never acknowledge upside down “data”. Besides which it should have been obvious even to Mann that tree rings are a poor proxy for temperature. Not to mention the various statistical failings in the HS.
      2) They clearly were whitewash, the few that actually even addressed the relevant issues. Consensus “climate science” is totally corrupt at every stage of the crooked, cooked book endeavor.

    • True a investigations that in no way looked at Mann , could not be consider a cover-up or whitewash of him , but by the same logic these investigations could in no way be consider to validity Mann , despite him making this claim in the documents presented to the court. But then again thiese same documents also claim he won the Nobel prize which is also an outright lie , so it would seem for Mann lying in his presentations to the court is just ‘standard practice’
      Lets hope the court see it in the same way .

    • I do answer ‘yes’ to the first paragraph. Regarding the second regarding a scandal whitewash and coverup? Not sure, I am not American and don’t really understand how their constitution and legal matters operate with regards defamation. However, if someone fails to forecast the weather correctly once (not climate change as per AGW scientific studies or supposed to be factual and accurate and this affects how people view industrial countries and start investing in carbon credits and green energy) and is told they are a lousy weather forecaster, one would have to suggest this is not defamatory but the truth for that one day only.
      Much financial harm has been the result from Mann’s incorrect scientific report on AGW.
      Money spent on clean energy or so called clean energy, hoping to save the planet, is another South Sea bubble or should I say Climate change bubble for investors. Carbon credit scams, ineffective solar and wind energy schemes, and the UN Climate Change fund, that is ill managed and costly to industrial countries if they contribute.
      Anyone who tries to predict the weather knows there are many variables. Anyone who thinks they can predict humanity’s future regarding our climate change or rather AGW is again dabbling in fortune telling with NO causation factors that can not be predicted.

  29. Also do you believe the investigations of Mann and related investigations were a scandal whitewash and coverup?
    All we know is that they limited the scope of their questions. On the narrow issues they determined, I am not even in serious disagreement with their conclusions. Unlike not a few here, I don’t even want any of them to lose their jobs.
    Besides, they paid for their folly. They paid in the worst way and in the coin in which they were most unwilling to pay. I wouldn’t swap places with any of those involved, not for all the gold in Acapulco. Not for all the grants in Vicksburg. That’s payment plenty, and payment in kind. Justice tempered with mercy. So be it.

    • But the Oxburgh “investigation” was not only limited because of the scope of their questions, but also because of the scope of the papers that they told to examine and, more particularly, because Oxburgh should never have accepted the leadership of the investigation, since he was so heavily conflicted, not only by those “renewable energy” companies with which he was involved and had declared an interest in the House of Lords’ register, but also with one that he failed to declare and for which he was chastised by the Commissioner for Standards.
      “I am satisfied that Lord Oxburgh’s role as an adviser to the RAEF would be thought by a reasonable member of the public to be a relevant interest for the purposes of the Code of Conduct. The responsibilities of the advisory board quoted above make membership of it akin to the offices and bodies required to be registered under category 10 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct (paragraph 79). Accordingly, I am of the view that he should have registered his membership of the advisory board in the Register of Lords’ Interests and that he breached the Code of Conduct by not doing so.” RAEF stands for Real Asset Energy Fund.
      Anyone who believes that the Oxburgh Report was not a whitewash does not understand how these whitewashes are supposed to work.
      Lord Hutton understood this and his report exonerating Tony Blair and his associates of involvement in the death of Dr. Kelly was published quickly. Sir John Chilcot, whose inquiry into Blair’s involvement in the second Iraq war ended nearly four years ago, has still not been permitted to publish his report because it has been found lacking in whitewash.

      • That’s all politics. Politicians will pigpile; that’s what they do.
        The hard fact is that MBH98 has been shot down in the peer-review literature (even by Mann himslef, a little, in 2008). These guys (i.e., their friends, colleagues, and allies) know full well about it, despite what press releases they issue. They know what was in the emails.
        Can you not see how diabolical and seething such a punishment is? Dr. Jones became deeply depressed and had suicidal thoughts. Mann has been reduced to his present state of mind. All of them have suffered in ways that I would not trade for all the money in the world. Climategate has destroyed their happiness, their stature, their pride. It has embittered and entrenched them, disempowered them, as the peer-reviewed literature passes them by.
        It pains me that this has occurred. I cannot argue the justice of its outcome, but I would not wish such a fate on anyone. Better to have died.

      • evanmjones said: Mann has been reduced to his present state of mind.

        A hot head? 😎
        Time to recycle.
        What tree this is, I think I know.
        It grew in Yamal some time ago.
        Yamal 06 I’m placing here
        In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
        But McIntyre did think it queer
        No tree, the stick did disappear!
        Desparate measures I did take
        To make that stick reappear.
        There were some corings from a lake.
        And other data I could bake.
        I’ll tweek my model more until
        Another hockey stick I’ll make!
        I changed a line into a hill!
        I can’t say how I was thrilled!
        Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
        Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.

  30. Eli Rabett
    “Serious question how many people here take seriously Steyn’s characterization of Mann as unscientific and the ringmaster of a tree-ring circus?”
    Serious answer, yes.
    Not releasing his code, not answering questions on his methods made his whole project a circus and he is the ringmaster. As to unscientific, I do not think Steyn said he was not a scientist or that he was not doing scientific work. He questioned the competence of the work noting that incompetence was the best explanation for Mann, the others involving misleading people as to [tree ring] data sets and algorithms used deliberately.
    Also do you believe the investigations of Mann and related investigations were a scandal, whitewash and cover up?
    Yes, yes and yes.
    As Eli would know very few actual investigations of Mann have been done and those by his university were so constrained and unhelpful that they actually invited comparison to the University’s scandal, whitewash and cover up, sorry, treatment of another employee that was the cause of the current court proceedings.
    A proper inquiry, focusing on the Mike’s trick e mails by the University would have stopped this being a scandalous issue.
    A proper inquiry into his scientific work has never been done.
    A proper inquiry into his Nobel Prize claims and the claims that he had not been involved in making the graph on the IPCC report when he was showed some elements of whitewash and cover up.

  31. I thought that “the rabbit” was banned from Anthony’s blog?? However, the name rabbit is appropriate. Refer to the Australian slang dictionary for definition:
    1. idiot;
    2. (cricket) player who is not very good at batting
    3. talk nonsense, usually at length

    • Richo, LOL, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. So long as they don’t flame anyone while expressing it. This blog is to educate as well as illustrate.

  32. one of my favorite quotes about the legal proceedings applies to any stage, so long as it’s all still ongoing:

    [Steyn]: “And so, as the rising tide of Michael Mann’s lies threatens to drown the beleaguered Tuvalu of truth, we battle on.”

    source of Steyn quote

  33. icouldnthelpit … what a joke. Wholly unable and unwilling to provide a shred of evidence supporting their silly claims.
    The SINGLE link he has provided is a link to Wikipedia. Laughable.
    EXACTLY the type of arrogant hubris we’ve seen from Michael “Hide the Decline/Mikes Nature Trick” Mann.
    Steyn’s comments were accurate – the truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Mann is without ANY legal question a “public figure.” This is as a result of HIS OWN actions – his overt public activism in support of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cause. A public figure has an exceedingly high standard to prove defamation. A standard not remotely reached in this case.
    Mann is employing the same exact tactic as with his lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball – attempt to spend him to death.

  34. Does anyone know if Mr Mann is employed at present in his capacity of a climate expert, or even an academic? I don’t think Tim Flannery is employed either.

  35. db No I didn’t think you were aiming at me, but I thought I would put it in anyway. Is Mann employed? I think anyone with any common sense would avoid employing him. Maybe he will write a book with Al Gore?

Comments are closed.