Guest essay by John A.
It has been awhile since we’ve heard anything about the progress of the lawsuit, and so given the current toxic witchhunt against climate skeptics, perhaps it’s time to review again. I noticed a couple of posts on Mark Steyn’s blog regarding the suit brought against him by Michael Mann, WUWT’s favorite climate scientist, which I felt should be brought to a wider audience.
First off, no scientific organization has filed amici briefs supporting Mann’s suit against the National Inquirer, the CEI or Mark Steyn:
A few [months] ago, you’ll recall, the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, The Los Angeles Times and various other notorious right-wing deniers all filed amici briefs opposed to Michael Mann and his assault on free speech. They did this not because they have any great love for me, but because their antipathy to wackjob foreign blowhards is outweighed by their appreciation of the First Amendment – and an understanding of the damage a Mann victory would inflict on it. After noting the upsurge of opposition to Mann, Reuters enquired of Catherine Reilly (one of his vast legal team) whether there would be any amici filing pro-Mann briefs:
I asked Reilly if the professor would have any supporting briefs next month when he responds to the defendants in the D.C. appeals court.
“At this point, we don’t know,” she said.
Ms Reilly was a pleasant sort when I met her in court over a year ago, but she struck me as a formidable opponent. So I naturally assumed that the above was what what the political types call “lowering expectations”. As I wrote:
“I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs. I was in court when Ms Reilly’s genial co-counsel made his argument for Mann, which was a straightforward appeal to authority: Why, all these eminent acronymic bodies, from the EPA and NSF and NOAA even unto HMG in London, have proved that all criticisms of Mann are false and without merit. So I would certainly expect them to file briefs – and, given that Mann sees this as part of a broader “war on science” by well-funded “deniers”, I would also expect briefs from the various professional bodies: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, etc. As pleasant as it is to find my side of the court suddenly so crowded, I’m confident Mann will be able to even up the numbers.”
Well, yesterday was the deadline, and not a single amicus brief was filed on behalf of Mann. Not one. So Michael Mann is taking a stand for science. But evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for Michael Mann.
Now that IS surprising, because I would have thought that someone, some interested organization would be supporting Mann. I could think of the IPCC or Al Gore or Penn State University or the University of Virginia or the University of East Anglia’s Climate Science Unit or the AAAS or the WMO or some body or other.
The self-appointed captain of the hockey team is playing solo. As Judith Curry wrote last month:
“The link between ‘defending Michael Mann is defending climate science’ seems to have been broken.”
As yesterday’s deafening silence confirms. If you’re defending Michael Mann, you’re not defending science, or defending climate science, or theories on global warming or anything else. Defending Michael Mann means defending Michael Mann – and it turns out not many people are willing to go there.
Truly the silence is deafening. It’s not a good sign that no organization associated with the research into the perils for future global warming felt any need to support Mann in his Valiant Defense of Science by filing a brief.
Oh brother climate scientists, where art thou?
The second update I noticed was Mann’s repudiation of his own smoothed (and artfully pruned) hockey stick.
Here’s the graphic:
And here’s what Mann has told the court (with emphasis by Steyn):
In their brief, the CEI Defendants suggest that the University of East Anglia’s investigation actually found that the hockey stick graph was “misleading” because it did not identify that certain data was “truncated” and that other proxy and instrumental temperature data had been spliced together… This allegation is yet another example of Defendants’ attempts to obfuscate the evidence in this case. The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.41 Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.
Disingenuous: adjective “not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.”
Except as Steyn points out, that particular depiction was claimed to have been created by Mann and other Hockey Team members because Mann claimed that he did on his online resume:
So who or what to believe? Mann’s own resume or Mann’s deposition to the Court?
It’s a brain-buster for sure.
I’m sure that Mann will be projecting himself to be a lone scientific David bravely fighting the evil Denialist Fossil-Fuel funded Goliath. But unless Mann is seriously packing heat in his slingshot, it looks to me somewhat dicey from this vantage point.
Someone is going to lose heavily in this Climate Loserweight Title Fight. I can’t see it going the distance.
Very interesting that no players with skin in the carbon market game (Blood & Gore for instance) have ponied up to defend the star of the Hockey Stickers…If the hockey stick is proven to be contrived, there is no raison d’etre for carbon markets. The real Inconvenient Truth will be self evident. Nobel Prizes will lose there nobility.
The Nobel Peace price lost all nobility, and credibility, at least 30 years ago.
Mann is just beyond parody, but here goes
“I would be surprised if Mann didn’t have any supporting briefs.”
He could try and get some online.
Flame-proof, preferably.
He’s got nothing his side (or front) that can be supported.
He needs a Mannkini:
http://www.mrbenscostumecloset.com/media/catalog/product/2/9/29777_7.jpg
I’d love to support him, but he banned me on Facebook for saying that discovery will be interesting
Would that make him a solicitor?
Wait till “they” get their hanes on him….(8>))…
Perhaps he could get Dr. Pachauri as a character witness.
Few people deserve a righteous smackdown as much as meager, mean Michael Mann.
Pompous, puffed-up, prevaricating, pathetic, paltry puny punk, pretending all the while to be “Poor (P)Victim”
Puhh!!
“Cry Me a River”, Mikey. Mark Steyn is the champ!
Funny thing, when the herd senses danger they often flee, leaving the slowest and least nimble to be eaten.
Mann was gullible. He thought by producing the poster child he would be at the centre of his subject. Instead those who were more cautious have moved on without him noticing leaving him to hang our and dry.
Tuesday Funny time!
For those who missed this …
Redressing Mann’s Hockey Stick Fallacy
http://www.maxphoton.com/redressing-manns-hockey-stick-fallacy/
It was hard to reconstruct the features of the face of the pretty body, with your extremely poor photographic technique, of this person looking at us trough the tree rings over the face. Why did you cover the face with tree rings to make it difficult? You like to make work for us? Or were you not just trying to make a pretty but mysterious display to be printed on a book you have been busy writing?
After using Photoshop and layers and layers I was able to be 97% sure that this person is most probably a female and 97.5% sure the person is pretty. Good luck with your book.
Never Mind!
I don’t even know where to start.
Doesn’t hockey stick FALLACY start with a PH.
… processing … processing … processing …
Gary, the homophone is ringing. I think rd50 is lost and needs directions.
rd50 may be lost which means he is following his own directions. The hockey stick did press the MWP flat and levered up the LIA flat. I was just noting that the stick wasn’t being used for its proper purpose.
So-called Scholarly Scientific Societies seldom get caught up in controversies or lawsuits such as this mostly because it is neither their duty to defend their members, nor is there anything in it for them. They like to stay under the radar as much as possible.. The same probably applies to NSF.
As for EPA and NOAA, they could file but have nothing to gain entering a private dispute.
In short, Dr. Mann is on his own as he should be because he instigated the lawsuit. Time will tell whether he will discover that the first thing they tell you in law school is “You can NEVER predict what a judge will do.” SO, don;t place your bets on this one, much as i prefer to see Dr. Mann withdraw or lose his case.
Yeah, for it to mean all that much that various stakeholders are or are not submitting amici in the Mann case, we should see a few examples of other legal pickles where interested 3rd parties did and did not venture their 2¢.
Basically, 1.), Dr. Mann should have worked from a different plane/angle, and 2.), he should have found a proxy to champion him. And if he couldn’t, he should have held his fire and waited for a cleaner shot, and just kept his powder dry. The protracted machinations diminish him.
Scientists can use their skills to impressively argue the Bible with fundamentalists, but their abilities & assets don’t generally cut a fancy figure at the bar or in court. Exhibit ‘A’.
Lolz…popcorn time!
“First off, no scientific organization has filed amici briefs supporting Mann’s suit agains”
No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held. Amici briefs are not supporting one side or the other in the facts of the case. Amici means friend of the court, not of the litigant. Organizations file amici briefs at the appeal level to argue for some legal point that suits their interests, on which the appeal court might set a precedent. Big Print doesn’t like libel laws, so the cause of the appellants gets a lot of support. Scientific organizations generally don’t have an issue to press with libel laws.
Nick, you’re such a contrarian!
The US Supreme Court requires that ” The cover of an amicus brief must identify which party the brief is supporting…”
Since I’m not a lawyer, I have to choose between believing you or Wiki.
I think you made that up!
Well, here is the brief from the DC Government at the previous appeal. Would you expect the DC to intervene on behalf of Steyn? The cover says, in bold:
“BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN SUPPORT OF NO PARTY CONCERNING THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION”
Nick,
You are correct in that amici curiae means friendsof the court. But _all_ of the amici briefs supported the defendants and none supported Mann.
Do not try to represent those amici briefs as not supporting the position of the defendants; these certainly do.
Nick is again trying to confuse people with formalism. It is the content of the amicus briefs that counts not the title of them. But the content is something that Nick does not want to talk about…
NS, if you think no amici briefs have been filed, then you have [not] been following, and have just debased yourself (again). Do catch up with current events [before] opining.
Rud,
Read again. I said “No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held”. Do you know of any? There are amicus briefs at the appeal court. If someone really wanted to support Steyn et al, they would do it in the trial court (if permitted).
The thing about Warmists is that they truly believe that if they keep their fingers crossed, hold their breath and keep their eyes shut real tight, then the stuff they believe will become true.
You just confronted Nick Stokes with some ‘facts’….and as you know Facts to Warmists are like garlic laced crucifixes are to Vampires!
From a purely technical standpoint, Nick is right. He’s just trying to confuse you on what the meaning of “is” is.
Nick’s comment makes perfect sense to me. If a scientific organisation doesn’t have skin in the game, there is no reason to get involved. Getting involved costs money. People hate spending money and get no value. It is very simple. I think Nick’s comment was trying to point out that the absence of amici briefs for Mann doesn’t say much about the science or the validity of Steyn’s position. Supporting a person who has dug himself a deep deep hole because he was oversensitive is a waste of resources.
Mann was trying to suppress free speech. It is his privilege on Facebook to suppress views he doesn’t like. It is the privilege of the alarmists to ban people from their blogs that question the orthodoxy. But in the broader world, he has to live with what he created. Public figures in the U. S. have a much higher standard to meet to prove they’ve been libeled. I don’t know if Mann can meet that standard. We’ll see by and by.
What interests me, is who is paying his legal bills? Shine a light on those people or institutions as well. By supporting Mann, they are trying to make free speech harder to engage in. They are attempting to reduce our freedom. If public pressure can be brought against Mann’s sponsor(s) and they withdraw funding, Mann will still be unable to withdraw because of Steyn’s counter suit. It would be poetic justice to see him have to deal with what he created with only his own personal resources.
Yes, Nick, but your assertion was that “amici briefs are not supporting one side or the other…”.
They do not have to support one side or the other but they MAY, and, indeed, they do.
The cover of the ACLU amici brief reads thus; “BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND 26 OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS AND URGING REVERSAL “
Nick said:
No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held.
The one you refer to appears to be to the Appeals court.
Phil,
That was, indeed, what Nick said. His following comments were his description of amici briefs in general.
Ironically, having said that ” Amici briefs are not supporting one side or the other in the facts of the case.” he contradicts himself by alluding to the support given to appellants by ‘Big Print’.
I took issue with his characterization of amicus briefs as a whole. The question of whether Steyn is supported more than Mann is the larger topic of interest.
Phil, that’s technicially true but a meaningless distinction.
“he contradicts himself by alluding to the support given to appellants by ‘Big Print”
No, you just need to read it properly. The amici are not intervening to say that the words spoken were not defamatory, or that the HS is busted or whatever. The facts of the case. The appeal court isn’t trying that. They are intervening on points of law – how trials should be conducted, especially in the light of SLAPP.
Incidentally, the amici certainly aren’t supporting Steyn. He isn’t an appellant.
Nick,
If I’m not reading it properly, perhaps it’s because you’re not writing it properly!
Your first sentence clearly refers to this specific case, but your second sentence appears to be the beginning of a characterization of amicus briefs in general.
I read it this way because the rest of your comment is unambiguously a general statement, and because you have just stated that “No organization of any kind has filed amici briefs in the Court where the trial is being held.”
You can’t be referring to amicus briefs in this specific case because you’ve just said there aren’t any.
You don’t use the definite article or any other demonstrative to qualify “amici briefs” at the beginning of your second sentence and that, typically, includes all amici briefs everywhere.
It’s not a very big point I’m trying to make, I’ll grant you.
Although I’ve known ‘amicus’ means ‘friend’ in Latin for 50 years, I don’t think I’d taken note of ‘amicus brief’ until the mannsteyn marvel made the news.
For your extra entertainment, as said, Steyn is not a litigant in the appeal. But he is an amicus curiae. His memo, says:
“Brief of Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn in support of neither party”.
But he expands:
“Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn brings this brief in support of neither affirmance nor reversal, but instead in support of an expeditious ruling on this matter.”
Since it is the other defendants that are holding things up with the appeal, you could say that his brief is supporting Mann.
Yes, the fun continues.
It states that Steyn IS a defendant in the action, in spite of his amicus brief not being in support of either side. It also claims that the defendants are particularly damaged by the delay, so that belies the detached position of the brief’s title.
The convolutions of the case are definitely beyond me and I will be content to merely witness the outcome.
My sympathies are with Steyn but I don’t always back the winner.
Amicus briefs are based on principles but what the litigants are arguing about is based on principles, so briefs take one side or the other, to claim otherwise is simply BS.
But you are correct scientific organizations generally don’t have an issue to press with libel laws, since science is supposed to be about empirical evidence, process, etc.. Apparently Mann unlike scientific organizations is more interested in public opinion than science.
This e-mail thing keeps getting worse and worse…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/holder-used-secret-email-address-too/
Attorney General Eric Holder used secretive email accounts under aliases during his tenure at the Justice Department, raising fresh questions about the Obama administration’s compliance with federal records laws as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reels from her own email scandal.
Holder has emailed under the nom de plume “Henry Yearwood” in the past, former Justice Department officials say. The Huffington Post reported Tuesday that Holder had used three aliases. The current is unknown.
A spokesman for Holder claimed to the Huffington Post that the secretive email accounts did not interfere with the production of Holder emails to congressional oversight officials or FOIA requests.
Former Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson came under fire previously for emailing under an alias, Richard Windsor, that critics alleged had protected her correspondence from some FOIA requests.
For those of you that think Mann can simply fold up and walk away, Stein has a counter suit for $20M+ which is totally unrelated to what Mann may do with his suit. This balsy move by Stein is lopping years off Mann’s life you can be sure. This article should have made this point – Stein is a lion. The counter may also have resolved it for those who may have been considering support, too. Mann’s options: he has to pony up what is requested for discovery and battle it out to avoid the counter suit or he withdraws with his tail between his legs and writes a check for $20M+, + costs and punitive damages for bringing a baseless suit before the court. No, there will be no shaking hands and walking away from this. I think he got his legal fund in place before the counter suit. I’d be surprised if they bankrolled him enough for this. All that will be left is stand up comedy for the good doctor to pay off – he won’t be worth much in regular speaking engagements even if he has the guts to face an audience again.
There will be the usual consolation awards made by the learned societies, etc (Gleick for felonious uncharged mail fraud, etc, Chris Turney of Ship of Fools fame in OZ, Ehrlich for spending an entire career and retirement being alarmist and wrong), perhaps the OZ centre for excellence in climate science might step up- they did just that for the head of the Ship of Fools musical comedy we were treated to last year that upstaged Gilbert and Sullivan. It makes a good plot that I had hoped would be the subject of a movie including the ship captain calling on assistance from John Coleman who got Anthony Watts and Joe d’Aleo working on a forecast that was spot on, the weather change resulting in the release of the ship!
oops, make that Steyn.
Best Post Award nominee!
All this fuss over supposed “smoothing” of the Medieval Warm Period? I would say the judge’s decision is irrelevant. Let’s move on to more important topics than smearing individuals (whether they be Mann, Soon, Pachy, whomever).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Agreed: it does look like the verdict will ‘by now’ be an anticlimax, either way. Individuals could be impacted, but it’s ‘academic’, in the bigger picture … and not the kind of academics anyone wants to be too close to.
Each personality (Mann, Soon, Patchy) can be dealt with case-by-case. Not-moving-on, per se, doesn’t mean smearing.
The link didn’t open to the intended anchor-target, for me; reverted to the base URL.
Barry, you wrote: “All this fuss over supposed ‘smoothing’ of the Medieval Warm Period?”
How in the world to you manage to take away that message from the story? Mann is the one who brought the lawsuit! He has ONLY himself to blame. He is persecutor here, not the victim.
Barry,
When you say ” Let’s move on to more important topics…”, who is it that should move on?
The whole world including Mark and Mike?
Just us, here at WUWT?
Everyone on this thread?
You’re here but you don’t have to be; there’s a whole bunch of other posts to read and remark upon.
You can be pretty sure that we will all move on quite soon.
Don’t feel you have to wait for us, we’ll catch up to you.
@ur momisugly Barry, Raaasppppbbbberry…..What a terribly weak argument I don’t think Mann would hire you as a lawyer or a “consultant” even if you did it for free. In the real world we call your comment a diversion.
Barry
January 27, 2015 at 2:19 pm
I would be interested to know what specific research of Soon’s was funded by the American Petroleum Institute, Texaco Foundation, ExxonMobil Foundation, and the Koch brothers.
The smearing didn’t seem to bother you 6 weeks ago Barry, what’s changed?
Well if at this point you believe the judge’s decision is irrelevant, you can ask the judge to award Steyn damages for Mann wasting Steyns time and money as well as the courts. Please do so asap.
Some slimeballs deserve smearing.
It´s not just about smoothing. It’s about tricks, hiding the decline and statistical errors, to put it mildly, ie blatant manipulation.
Oh Mann… I called this one!
When the whole thing first started, I said Mann would get no support from his compatriots. It is one thing to make public pronouncements to reporters in general terms tat sound supportive, quite another to actually submit documentation to a court of law where the outcome for misleading the court can be severe penalties. They’re staying away in droves because they’d crumple under cross, and they all know it.
Mann’s not under trial, there’s no call for any such filings.
How often do people here have to tell you that Steyn has counter-sued Mann, before you understand it?
Mann is being sued…by steyn. can’t you read?
“I said Mann would get no support from his compatriots.” – Link please.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/04/help-steyn-with-the-mann-discovery-process/#comment-1558671
Thanks David – not that I doubted you for a minute! A very insightful comment you made over a year ago. Well-spotted Sir.
Yes, all of Mann’s natural allies have turned their backs on him. They voted with their feet and walked away.
For something worse than the hockey stick, see Upsidedown Tiljander, Mann, on Climate Audit.
Absolutely. This is why forcing these people out of their comfort zones is so critical. I still think the question as to whether on some level any of these people actually believe their own guff about CAGW must be taken seriously. And putting people in situations like this is one way of testing this hypothesis. (How ironic that it was Mann who initiated the whole thing!)
And if the hypothesis in question is true, then in the end this hysteria may collapse as dramatically as the Dreyfus affair did once the perpetrators lost control.
My question, will Mann become the greatest scapegoat in history? Will the entire climate establishment attempt to blame Mann’s work for their defective conclusions? Sounds crazy and far fetched, but I think they might be desperate enough to try.
When the house of cards collapses everyone will be made a scapegoat by the politicians and bureaucrats who are career butt-coverers. But wait till the already disenfranchised (e.g. Russell Brand)) realises they have been fed a pack of lies to enrich the elite they so despise. Buy popcorn futures now! It may take 10 years, or it may a day. The climate is about to change a wee bit.
There once was a wave off Nantucket.
Who’s curl was so cold you could touch it.
In the shape of a fin
Global warming done in
With a straw Michael Mann could just suck it.
🙂
The real questions are whether history will be written to favor Mann anyway (given all the tax-funded agencies on his side) and how badly his opponents will be financially ruined even if they win (because the US still doesn’t have loser-pays).
Except those opponents who have the spheres to counter sue! Now the only way out for Mike is to win! He can’t withdraw, even with his tail between his legs or he’ll have to write the check and I believe it is $20M +.
Not likely the way the (real) climate seems to be trending. (How many historians take the part of the witch hunters, who had all the funding agencies of the time on their side?)
I wonder if Carol (Carol Finn AGU) and Marcie (Marcie McNutt AAAS) [as we use to sing in USGS Denver, “a Nutt is a Nutt if you think like a Nutt”] would come to the rescue of Mann. Kissy kissy, lick lick, on pussy pussy.
Ah Ha! USGS Style! Together and in Grand Gay Union Ms Carol, Ms Marcie and Mr Mann will hold an “Equinoxes Event!”
The Goal of the “Event” … is to [drum roll and Gong] … Give Birth to the … “SON OF MANN”!
[trimmed]
Drill Baby Drill, Find those old bank accounts … Drill Baby Drill. 🙂
Mene mene tekel upharsin
“Daniel read it “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” and explained it to mean that God had “numbered” the kingdom of Belshazzar and brought it to an end”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%205
“Daniel read it “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin” and explained it to mean that God had “numbered” the kingdom of Belshazzar and brought it to an end”
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10678-mene-mene-tekel-upharsin
In today’s screwed up world as shown with the Clinton E-mails ( and now Holder and soon I assume many more to come). Do not count the chickens before the eggs are hatched.This whole scenario is going to play out sadly enough for many years to come and by then another diversion will push all of this to the background under the motto
“What difference at this time does it make”
and that is what will happen if Clinton gets elected!
asybot,
Being a pessimist, I tend to agree with you. Maybe not about another President Clinton, but the thing that concerns me is this thoroughly incompetent judge. She is a poster child for a political judicial appointee, and she rates about as low as anyone on any bench.
The upside is the defendant. Spectators could not ask for more of a tiger than Mark Steyn. Mann picked the wrong guy to go after. The odds are high that he will live to regret it.
Better by far if Mann could have picked an organization to go after. They fold easily [I know, Mann also named Steyn’s employer. But Steyn is the one he has by the tail].
With an impartial judge I have very little doubt that Steyn would prevail. He may well anyway. But no matter what happens, Mann will get no glory either way. When folks see his true character, they are repulsed.
Doesnt the ACLU provide legal representation pro bono?
Surely you should be sceptical of claims made by Mark Steyn?
He is claiming that because Mann points out that he did not author the graphic gracing the cover of “WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999”.
…something….
because Mann authored the graphic on the front cover of “Temperature Changes Over the Last Millenium, 2000”.
Like, what *are* you thinking?
More importantly, what are you thinking *with*?
Could you post that hockey stick chart again, please. I think I missed it the last couple times.
Craig ..
http://nichol.as/papers/wmo913.pdf
It kinda says ‘Mann’ did it on the front page.
Can you provide a link to the 2000 version ? because the 1999 document (as far as I am aware) was in fact published in 2000 if you read the report you will see that clearly in
Oh yeah, best to have your eyes open when reading it though, it helps.
“Mann points out that he did not author the graphic gracing the cover of “WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 1999″.
…something….
because Mann authored the graphic on the front cover of “Temperature Changes Over the Last Millenium, 2000″.”
Yes, I wondered about that too. WUWT?
Craig…if one asserts damages resulting from being called a fraud, and it is revealed in discovery that the plaintiff is a liar, who misrepresents his role in producing graphics used for the cover of the WMO report… that the plaintiff lied on his C.V. That his own pleadings are contradicted by his own writings?
Dont you think reasonable inference would be that the plaintiff is a proven liar, a fraud?
That’s steyn’s point. You may not agree with it, but its a defensible position, one provided by Mann’s own actions and claims.
Now, really. just go away.
Craig,
It’s pretty obvious you would never get asked to represent someone.
The following quote, probably known to all of you, summarizes the situation rather well:
“When the later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of the twenty-first century as an embarrassing chapter in the history of science. They will wonder about our time and use it as a warning of the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten, as the actual research topic of climate change turned into a political and social playground”
– Atte Korhola, Professor of Environmental Change, University of Helsinki.
Seem to place Dr. Mann’s lawsuit in the “political/social playground.”
Very well put by Professor Atte Korhola.
I always the most interesting potential areas of study concerning climate science was not climate but the political and social behaviors around it.
The non-supporting ought-to-be supporters have obviously realized that the Mann is going down. And they don’t want to get sucked into the ensueing maelstrom. Keep clear of dubious, porky Nobel-Prize non-winners seems to be the motto. Manns obituary in the academic world might be even titled “Good riddance!”
Just curious, is this case (if it ever happens) to be tried by a judge?
Will there be a jury involved?
I seem to remember a rather immature female judge in Canada giving a rather strange decision recently on a not dissimilar case.
I would be worried about the impartiality of a government appointed judge, considering the present ‘climate’ in the White House.
I believe the case you reference was the one ever so elegantly demolished by Steve McIntyre in several recent climate audit posts: here and here. And actually I see Steve has two new posts which may expand on the ones I linked.
waterside4,
My concern also. Not being a lawyer I’m still wondering if this will be a jury trial? Or would Steyn’s counter-suit be a jury trial?
I would hate to take my chances with a judge like Combs-Greene — although she will probably make so many errors that appeals would be productive.
If this isn’t a jury trial, then the judge is surely the wild card.
Demo with methane?