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.”
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?
Does anyone have a link or a copy of the audio file of the oral arguments. I would like to listen.
JD
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.
like oscar wilde, mann will regret seeking his day in court.
snicker
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 :
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.
Alan, thanks for the reality check. Sad, but I’m afraid you have hit the nail on the head.
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.
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.
molecules are models
The HS graph is to climate models what printed ‘blueprints’ are to 3D engineering 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.
I agree Catherine Ronconi. The comment by Steven is rediculous!
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod]
To be fair so many models have failed to provide accruate predictions, so often it may be hard for Steyn to rememeber them all.
icouldnthelpit,
Name one alarmist prediction that has come true.
“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.
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
After reading ALL of the above we still do not know any outcome from today’s case
Good point. Is there anyone with knowledge of the US legal system who can give us some idea of when judgement is likely?
1 week would be amazingly rapid. A month or more is likely.
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.
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
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.
when has the NYT time ever been anything other than a pitiable rag?
Whatever intellectual rigor Krugman once had, he abandoned.
He is no more than a partisan hack. People will abandon all kinds of things for money and/or power.
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.
Sorry, correction to above. Should be Hero syndrone, not Muchausens.
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.
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)
Isn’t all the evidence (or at least witness testimony) available online?
You can find it here http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/read-darren-wilsons-full-grand-jury-testimony/1472/ Additional files below Wilson’s testimony at that site. Especially Witness 10 interview.
Yes all the evidence and transcripts are available on line.
Not that it matters, people who have made up their minds are not interested in the evidence.
From what I read there was too much contradictory evidence to have even a remote hope of passing the reasonable doubt threshold in a trial.
I’m not going to try to read all of the evidence presented to the Grand Jury, but I per Rok I find the Witness 10 interview very helpful. It gives a much better “blow-by-blow” and layout of the situation than anything I have come across in the highly biased news media:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1371137-interview-witness-10.html
Tom, while its typicaly true that Grand Jury evidence isn’t presented to the public, in the case you site the evidence has been made public (whether or not the rioters will ever care to take a look at it is a completely different issue)
cite, not site
all you had to add to the conversation is typo corrections? Really?
Proceedings are confidential, the evidence isn’t.
Someone who has been a 19 year member of the bench should know that.
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.
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.
Yeah, don’t just hop off down some hole somewhere, but answer, wabbit.
you’re just avoiding answering Eli’s questions…..perhaps if you answered those, he would reply?
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?
freedom of speech equates to freedom to defame?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
if Mod. permits, here is a handy list of links to past Climate Audit posts related to Mann and the defamation case…. there is quite a remarkable body of work by Steve Mc. on so many aspects of the case(s), more than is part of the current appeal process but very helpful to anyone now trying (as I am) to get a grasp on more details of the matters being contested:
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/21/mann-and-the-muir-russell-inquiry-1/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/22/the-source-of-manns-doctored-quote/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/23/more-sks-in-the-mann-pleadings/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/24/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-commons-committee/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/27/mann-misrepresents-noaa-oig/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/09/mann-misrepresents-the-epa-part-1/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/13/aclu-and-national-media-intervene-in-mann-v-steyn-et-al/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/19/yet-another-misrepresentation-in-the-mann-pleadings/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/22/epa-on-manns-fraud-invective/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/26/misrepresentations-and-the-tainted-narrative-of-manns-complaint/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/04/manns-new-memorandum/
http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/10/another-porky-from-mann-williams-and-fontaine/
one of my favorite quotes about the legal proceedings applies to any stage, so long as it’s all still ongoing:
source of Steyn quote
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.
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.
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?