Uh, Oh. Steyn got tired of being “Mann-handled” and is doing some of his own

It seems Mark Steyn got tired of waiting for Dr. Michael Mann to finish the required legal discovery in that defamation lawsuit and has struck a blow in the form of a new book soon to be published. I wonder if we’ll see an attempt to block publication of this title: “A Disgrace To The Profession”. Yikes!

DTTPfrontSteyn writes:

Some readers have asked for an update on the looming Mann vs Steyn trial of the century. I wish it were looming a bit more imminently, but apparently it would be unreasonable to expect the sclerotic District of Columbia courts to litigate a 270-word blog post in under 270 weeks.

As you know, Michael E Mann, the inventor of the global-warming “hockey stick”, the single most influential graphic in the history of climate alarmism, sued me for defamation for calling his ever more flaccid stick “fraudulent”. I had called it fraudulent in national publications in Britain, Canada and Australia at various times over the last 15 years, but the First Amendment apparently requires giving up five years in court and a seven-figure sum for the privilege of learning whether one can say the same thing in the United States. And, by the way, it is fraudulent: It abolished the very concept of “natural variability” and insisted that nothing happened in the global climate until the 20th century, and it did so using a handful of unreliable tree-rings processed through a statistical method fished out of a can of alphabet soup.

Right now, the case is stalled while the DC Court of Appeals decides whether their brand new anti-SLAPP law comes with a right of interlocutory appeal. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But as of now no one knows. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am to find that I’m a test case. At any rate, written briefs were filed last September and there was half-an-hour of oral argument in November, but apparently after seven months the judges are still no hurry to issue an opinion.

“A Disgrace To The Profession”
The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science
Volume I Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.
Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred …because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research

Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.
Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

The defamation suit against Steyn by Michael E Mann, inventor of the global-warming “hockey stick”, is about to enter its fourth year at the DC Superior Court – which means Mark has a lot of case research lying around and he can’t wait forever for the trial to start. So he figured he’d put some of it in a new book, now available for pre-order exclusively from SteynOnline.

In the fall of 2014, not a single amicus brief was filed on Dr Mann’s behalf, not one. He claims he’s “taking a stand for science”, but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.

That got Mark curious as to what actual scientists think of Mann, his famous hockey stick, and his other work. So he started looking – and the result is a rollicking collection of insights into Big Climate’s chief enforcer by scientists from around the world, from Harvard to Helsinki, Prague to Princeton, with commentary from Steyn telling the story of the rise to global celebrity of one Mann and his stick.

“A Disgrace To The Profession”: The World’s Scientists In Their Own Words On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, And Their Damage To Science – Volume I will be published later this summer, but you can make sure you’re the first on your block with must-read book by pre-ordering your copy now exclusively from the SteynOnline bookstore. And as always Mark will be happy to autograph it personally for you or your warm-mongering loved one.

Available for pre-order

Advertisements

254 thoughts on “Uh, Oh. Steyn got tired of being “Mann-handled” and is doing some of his own

  1. Got to love this bloke, Steyn. Mann should never have taken him on. I will buy the book.

      • Ben, are you in the US or UK? I just tried to order this (from England) but it’s in dollars. Anyone know if this is being imported into the UK?

      • Ghosty…..

        Make sure you are on the .co.uk site, and not the .com site.

        Due to VAT laws, you cannot buy books from another country’s site. This also applies on most occasions within Europe, due to the big multinationals like Starbucks, Amazon and Google outsourcing their profits to Ireland and Luxembourg. Incidentally, the worst offender for arranging these tax-fiddles is the current EU Commission president, Jean Junker. Nice to know we have honest politicians in charge.

        Ralph

    • Ghost says:

      Mann should never have taken him on.

      Exactly right. There is a lot of regret in the Mann camp over that bad decision.

      Now Mann has a tiger by the tail. He’s screwed whether he hangs on or lets go.

      • I think that’s wonderful. If there’s any bloke that deserves a come-uppance, it’s Mann. I would favor a retraction of his PhD as a start, then a suit for damages to the field of science.

      • Embarrassed and shamed but screwed less if he quits now providing a statement declaring some self-serving drivel about needing more time for science and the pressing needs of the human race.

        A trial on the other hand would be disastrous for Mann and climate science.

      • “Embarrassed and shamed but screwed less if he quits now….”

        But he can’t because of Steyn’s masterstroke of counter-suing. So even if Mann wants to walk away claiming some symbolic victory, the case will continue.

  2. Thanks a lot for accepting your role as a much needed test case, Mark Steyn. I wish you the best of lucks with this trial, and I hope you can be properly rewarded for your fight when the final sentence arrives.

  3. Sweet Dreams Michael Mann. You so desire celebrity to console your fragile self-image that you will conspire to lie about your achievements (Nobel Prize) and fabricate a phantom opus with a catchy populist catch phrase. You were caught. I suspect that your demons pay a regular nocturnal visit to you now. I suggest you dispose of all of the mirrors in your home so that you don’t have to gaze upon the image of the creature who gave birth to your own misery.

  4. Excellent – Mark Steyn is now becoming a Science and Technology Studies (STS) practitioner. He’ll do it with more wit and elan than the professionals now in the field. I’ll be buying this book for sure.

  5. My forecast of the outcome of all this alarmism from Mann, Jones and all the others around the globe and their fellow travellers in the MSM and so on is ‘we are so sorry we were so wrong but we was really just trying to save the planet and future generations cos we really did believe that humanity was destroying it. We are sorry we put all that stuff about that turned out to be speculative shlock, we thought it was credible science at the time, we really did..please believe us… please, please, sob, sob.

    • More than likely, they will just gradually fade away without ever admitting they were wrong.
      While a new group of ecological scare mongers comes forward with a new scam that will justify their desires for govt to take over the world’s economy. For the children of course.

      • The perps should at the very least, lose there right to be addressed as scientist and journalist. What does it take to be addressed as a scientist anyway?

      • As near as I can tell, the modern definition of a scientist, is someone that other scientists call a scientist.
        Thus, you can only call yourself a climate scientist, if those the media have dubbed climate scientists, call you a climate scientist.

    • The manufactured “scientific” “consensus” for catastrophic AGW theory will probably end up like the “scientific” “consensus” that was manufactured by Trofim Lysenko.

      • They are still trying to claim that the model predictions from 20 years ago, were accurate, just premature.

  6. Michael Mann; some advice for what it is worth, when you are in a hole don’t keep digging.
    Mark Steyn, I will be buying your book, good luck with the law suit it is about time this lie was put to rest.

  7. The World’s Scientists … – Volume I

    Volume 1 – Yes folks Mark Steyn could, and just might, have much more to say about Dr. Mann.

    Science is facing a crisis of public trust. CBC Radio has just done a series Science Under Siege. I would say that activists like Mann have done a great deal to promote that public distrust.

    • It’s not science under siege, but academics who falsely claim that their views amount to “science” who are under siege. Science is and always was a method – known as the “scientific method”, it isn’t and never was a group of people.

      • That’s only half-right: Auto repair is and always was a method, it isn’t and never was a group of auto repair specialists.

        It is wholly legitimate to stake your claim on the Scientific Method. But it is also wholly legit to stake a claim that Science is simply the work product of Scientists — no matter the quality involved. But the larger issue with the Scientific Method is how ill defined it is. Not that it cannot be defined well, and is in some places, but that it simply isn’t as a broad and practical matter.

        A simple example of underdefinition in the scientific method: The progression of the moon and ‘heavenly bodies’ is and was a purely observational discipline. And yet, at some point, the phases of the moon and the motion of retrograde bodies was taken to the bank. Later on, much past epicycles, we got the elliptical notion of motion. And that was accepted. And then the non-relativistic, non-hypothesis theory of gravitation. And that was accepted. Later on, the relativistic, non-hypothesis theory of gravitation. And that was accepted. And now we’re having a huge crisis of faith about galactic rotation.

        Note well, that none of these ideas could be properly vetted — not tested, just viewed from a different reference frame — until we could eject instruments from the atmosphere.

        At what bright line do we distinguish between purely observational things we accept as Science, and which things we do not? It needn’t be a hard choice at all. We can simply state that Science requires “replicable experiment” and be done with it. Casting massive chunks of what is presently accepted as Science into the outer void of psychic phone lines and tarot cards.

        Every other solution requires a lot of Special Pleading, or reliance on a portion of the definition of Science that isn’t well defined.

      • jquip: The head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer by profession. Was he a “scientist?”. Lord Kelvin, if I recall correctly, was largely self-educated. Was he a “scientist?” Edison?*

      • Jquip, the “bright line” does not exist. The basic process is science – and the common-place error is to confuse science, scientists, and the results of scientific work with “truth.” The basic product of science (e.g. the use of the method, by scientists, to interpret a body of data) is a temporary or bounded understanding. When a scientist mistakes the results of his or her work for “truth,” the wheels have come off – mentally as well as scientifically. It is quite common place in the media to refer to “science” as if it were some huge monolithic entity, but the same media uses “religion” in the same mistaken fashion.

        The confusion of scientific understanding with truth is pervasive though because scientists are human beings and because it is all too clear to someone doing science (any science) that, despite the clear fallacy, the sheer volume of work required demands that some trust be placed in “authorities.” And there lies the rub; authorities may be honest, may be sociopaths, may be completely mistaken, may be reasonably accurate. Without replicating their work you don’t know – unless of course they are unwilling to let you replicate it, which pretty well eliminates “honest.” Elevating scientific opinions (theories) to dogma, be they Einstein or Michael Mann theories, is not science. The distrust of the public directed toward “science” should be instead directed toward the self-evident substitution of faith for critical thought that they are encouraged in by the lazy slackers that infest the media.

        All scientifically derived knowledge is provisional and limited to the domain within which it was developed, regardless of how useful it is within that domain. That is why Einstein came up with the STR and GTR. Newtonian models failed (began to generate discrepancies) around the borders of the domain within which they work reliably. Einsteinian gravity itself has the same precise problem as well, leading to modifications like dark matter and dark energy to deal with discrepancies. The difference is that Newtonian gravity work fine on and near earth, but begins to have problems at the scale of the solar system. Einsteinian gravity has problems at a galactic scale and falls quite short as the limits of astronomical observation are approached.

      • Jim Brock:

        Lord Kelvin, if I recall correctly, was largely self-educated. Was he a “scientist?”

        Define ‘Science.’ That issue was the point of the post to which you’re responding.

      • Duster:

        The distrust of the public directed toward “science” should be instead directed toward the self-evident substitution of faith for critical thought that they are encouraged in by the lazy slackers that infest the media.

        All scientifically derived knowledge is provisional and limited to the domain within which it was developed, regardless of how useful it is within that domain.

        Accordingly to this quoted portion, the distrust of the public should be directed toward the ‘provisional’ knowledge. As well as towards science journalism. Or at least, that’s how I read what you’ve written.

      • Jim: For many years, a scientist was anyone who did science. That is studied nature and tried [their] best to make sense of it.
        The modern definition of scientist, is anybody that the existing authorities declare to be a scientist. Regardless of what they actually do.
        Thus Lindzen and others are not scientists because the existing authorities do not recognize them.
        Whereas the guy who runs skepticalscience is a scientist because he backs those in authority.

    • CBC had an interview with a well respected scientist this morning. His claim? That all species will become extinct by 2030 if we don’t give up nasty carbon based fuel. Of course no one called him out on it, because he is a scientist after all.

      I see that the left wing media has come up with another new buzz word: Eco abuse.

      I predict that it wont be long before we see jail time for not recycling a piece of paper or watering our lawns.

      The world is going crazy with this weird dope smoking yoga inspired multicultural freak show.

      • I am a yoga instructor and back in the day smoked a lot of weed. I think Mark Steyn is hilarious and bright, and have contributed to his legal fund. I think categorizing groups of people as dopers or yogis or warmists or deniers is intellectually lazy. Just call them idiots for their mistaken ideas. Dope and yoga have nothing to do with it,

      • Sorry Murphyjv,
        I call it like I see it. My opinion is that it is best for men to stay sober and participate in something productive. Yoga is not productive. Nor is altering your mind with dope. Even National Geographic, which is probably run by ex hippies, is on the pot promotion bandwagon. I suppose that they will have yoga on the cover next month.
        You my earth comrade is the one who is intellectually lazy. Perfect example : smoking dope and stretching like a lazy cat.
        Don’t forget, these past middle aged ex-hippies are the ones setting the agendas in government now. The whole movement was stupid in the 60s and its stupid now. Dope and Yoga have plenty to do with it.
        Now get off the dope and build something.

      • Mick says:
        June 12, 2015 at 2:48 pm

        … Yoga is not productive.

        That’s kinda like saying that maintaining your car isn’t productive.

      • Mick do you appreciate Music? Movies, Art? Drugs and/or alcohol were part of the process. You like Winston Churchill? Alcoholic and chronic cigar smoker. I know you don’t like hippie dope heads even though they played a significant role in ending the Vietnam war, one of the more tragic and stupid wars America engaged in. You like to use a computer? Then you might be surprised at how many programmers enjoy various mind altering substances. Comedy? How many freaking sober comedians do you thing are out there?

        You are letting your bigotry show when you judge a person because they made different lifestyle choices than you have made. The only relevant thing worth focusing on is that a person who predicts human extinction based on zero reasonable evidence has embraced the role of idiot. Their lifestyle is irrelevant.

      • Mick:
        For your edification, there are, of course, the examples of Francis Crick and Kary Mullis, both users of LSD and both Nobel prize winners. Both credit their experiences with LSD with helping them gain the insights necessary to:
        1) determine the structure of DNA, and
        2) develop PCR, the technique used in all modern DNA anal;isis, in fact the technique that makes modern DNA analysis possible, respectively.
        Then again, perhaps a google scholar search of your body of scientific research will show that youre in a good position to judge these two guys?
        Oh wait, its difficult to do a google scholar search on “Mick”.

      • David eisenstadt, no, it wasn’t LSD that helped Watson and Crick win the Nobel prize. It was Linus Pauling first prediction that DNA had a triple helix configuration. He had the preposed chemistry wrong. Crick read the paper and saw that the chemistry was wrong. Crystallography helped him prove that the double helix was the correct configuration. It wasnt LSD, it was Pauling’s sober genius and creativity. Watson and Crick benefitted ultimately and were just birds on the hippos back.

    • I heard a promo for the series Science Under Siege on CBC radio. It seemed to imply there was a problem with the public perception about scientists and not with the scientists themselves. More an explanation of why we are behaving wrongly.

      • You’ve hit the nail on the head. They don’t acknowledge any problem at all on the part of the scientists.

        The blurb for part 3 says:

        How can the principle of direct observation of the world, free of any influence from corporate or any other influence, reassert itself?

        My answer would be that scientists have to stick to “direct observation of the world”. Certainly, for scientists who appear in the media, that principle is “more honour’d in the breach than the observance”.

      • Reminds me of Obama proclaiming that the only reason why the public didn’t love ObamaCare was he hadn’t given enough speeches explaining it.

      • commieBob: I find it fascinating the way these big govt advocates assume that any influence by corporation is evil, yet 100 times as much money from govt is a good and joyful thing.

  8. The only way Mann will be acknowledged as a fraud is with a jury trial – that won’t happen. It will be settled out of court. Too bad, but the science community will know.

    • The Scopes Monkey Trial pretty much sums up what to expect when the courts become involved on questions of scientific and public debate.

    • Have you not been following the case? Steyn has no intention of settling. He didn’t even appeal the court’s decision (as all three of his co-defendants did) to allow the case to proceed. He counter-sued and is telling the court he wants a trial. As long as people keep supporting his case by buying his books and gift certificates there’s no way he’s settling.

      • Holcombe….the reference has always been when and if Mann would settle and avoid a trial. The result of a trial where the jury decides in favor of Steyn would be devastating for Mann, IPCC, specific politicians, and the entire climate alarmist industry.

      • As mentioned elsewhere, Steyn has countersued + he doesn’t have to settle. Sounds like he’s ether requested or is going to request a jury trial. That’s his right.

      • A DC jury will be preponderantly Democrat, even with challenges, but Mann’s tricks and inappropriate proxies are easy to show and statisticians can demonstrate that the phone book produces a hockey stick when his shenanigans are applied to it. So even Yellow Dog Democrats might be willing to find for the truth.

        Plus, the law is on Steyn’s side, since Mann has indubitably made himself a public figure, and is proud of that fact.

        His lawyers in summation can also point out how the HS and CACCA threaten the world’s poorest people, for whom a “Progressive” panel might be expected to have sympathy.

      • I find it more than a little interesting that for seven months, the judges have sat on their decision for the latest teensy little procedural step.

        At that rate of speed, Steyn will be able to depose Mann in a courtroom in the year 2060, if either of the complainants are still alive.

        The point is that the Washington establishment now finds Mann’s suit to be an embarrassment. The least bad plausible outcome from their perspective is an infinitely long set of delays. After all, the lawyers will all still get paid, so what’s the problem!

    • However, Mark Steyn has countersued Dr Mann, and that case may well go to trial. I just hope I’m alive when the decision is rendered.

  9. This reminds me of what Mark Twain may or may not have said, “Never get into a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel and his paper by the ton.” I’m going to buy this book to support Mr. Steyn.

    • Or, in the internet age, a man whose website masthead bills him as “The One-Man Global Content Provider,”

  10. Will it be available in the UK or on Kindle or like Bob Tisdale’s “Who Turned on the Heat” on paid for PDF version?

    • I just tried to order it (I’m in England), but it seems US only at the moment. Shipping costs would add a lot!

  11. Just in time for Paris. We should start a fund to buy a copy for every government delegate going to that disgraceful junket. Or maybe I’ll just buy a copy for my senators and representative.

  12. If the main purpose of Michael Mann’s lawsuits is to silence his critics, he picked on the wrong one.
    We can all agree that it didn’t work with Mark Steyn.
    I like this quote from last year.

    The most interesting thing about today’s hearing at the DC Court of Appeals was that Michael E Mann was a no-show. In this interminable procedural bollocks now well into its third year, he’s supposedly the plaintiff – and yet in the last two years he has shown up in court on precisely one occasion. Dr Mann is not merely a fraud as a Nobel Laureate and a fraud as an octuply “exonerated” scientist, he’s a fraud as a plaintiff, too.
    Mark Steyn
    November 25, 2014

    http://www.steynonline.com/6680/where-steyn-goes-no-mann-goes

    • And this is part of the problem. This suit costs Mann nothing. He has some third party paying for his well connected lawyers and Mann himself never shows up at hearings.

      • You’re right. But Steyn’s countersuit may yield a just result, i.e. a repayment of his legal costs. If I’m Steyn, I look for a declaration from the court that Mann is a vexatious litigant, thus limiting any future lawsuits by this execrable Mann.

  13. I thought that you could be sued in the US for writing things, but I never thought that a court, especially one in DC, the place that should respect the First Amendment more than any other place would take it seriously.

    • “…especially one in DC, the place that should respect the first amendment…”
      the key word.

    • The suit is for slander. It has to do with smearing someones reputation falsely. Hopefully the court will find that he smeared Mr. Mann very truthfully and with gusto… if they are studied up on the science. That may give a legal standing to the skeptic cause in some way

      • If what he said is truthful–which it is–it’s not a smear. It’s just the truth.

      • And if it’s false, it has to be shown to be negligent with regard to the truth and have resulted in economic damages.

        Minimally, this requires a US Court to determine that ‘Cherry Picking’ is, or is not, to be considered synonymous enough with the word ‘Fraudulent.’ The amusement being that one choice will open up Science up to a host of suits. The other that it will open up people with their head screwed on to a host of suits. Regardless the outcome, Freedom of Scientific Speech in the US will be forever joined with citations of the ruling in this case. Much like the Scope’s ‘Monkey Trial’ mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

        That will be Mann’s most lasting legacy.

      • Mann is IMO unquestionably a public figure. The judge should not even have let this case go forward. But I’m glad she did, if it forces Mann to choke up his “data” and emails.

        A victory for Steyn might have a chilling effect on real science, but IMO that will be compensated for by the salubrious effect of slowing the rampant corruption of science by CACCA trough feeders.

    • DC Circuit Court. 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans. Am i the only one thinking the court will sit on this (as ordered by the WH) until we get a new POTUS? It would certainly fit the MO of our community organizer.

      • I do so agree with this opinion of the master of transparency. POTUS should of been honest and said obfuscation, but that would’ve been a bit contradictory.

      • This case isn’t being decided by the DC Circuit Court, which is a federal court. It’s being decided by the DC Court of Appeals, which is the District’s equivalent of a state supreme court. (I don’t doubt that it, too, is heavily Democratic.)

      • The appeals court is hearing an appeal on one procedural motion.
        That’s not the trial itself. That hasn’t started yet and probably won’t for years.

  14. Another one to add to the stack of Steyn books on my bedside table

    What is it with WUWT that my space bar wont work when I comment? Or full stops commas, question marks? But it does work in the email field below.

    [Formatting fixed. No one else has that problem, so it’s on your end. ~mod.]

      • “OK, that was rather annoying.”
        OK, it’s not annoying anymore but I thought it was sort of odd that Steve’s computer could even do that. Honestly, I think steve should send another reply and the above should be removed from the site. Especially when the whole world will be reading it for a long time to come. Anyway, I cannot wait to read your book Mr. Steyn.

    • My guess is that the page encoding and/or fonts on your screen are at cross purposes with either your operating system (Windows?) or the wordpress server. In other words, the electronic codes for each character you type may be interpreted differently in each spot. For example, there are many ways to encode a space in Unicode, the most prevalent extended character set, as here: https://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/chars/spaces.html.

      You can check the encoding in your browser. In Iron (open-source version of Chrome), you click the menu button, then Tools > Encoding and see if you are set to UTF-8. That character set works for me on this page.

      If this doesn’t work, I would try a different internet browser, then a different computer, then a different network (work, library, etc.). That will help bound the problem, if not solve it.

      Cheers!

      • If you’re using FireFox, simply close all it’s windows and restart it. That helps.
        I sometimes have the same problems, however not a single key works.

      • Assuming that this is windows, you forgot to recommend a reboot, several times if necessary. :(

  15. To say I can hardly stand to wait that long would be an understatement.
    Will the book be available in a Kindle edition? If so I will be preordering.
    And, Mr Steyn…Thank you!

  16. Not Mann, but this says a lot about the state of things:

    Jones’s response of 21/02/2005 to Warwick Hughes’s request for Jones’s raw climate data:

    “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

    • It says everything – while confirming that these careerists are not true scientists.

  17. but the First Amendment apparently requires giving up five years in court and a seven-figure sum for the privilege of learning whether one can say the same thing in the United States

    The First Amendment did no such thing. The First Amendment protects a person from reprisals from the government if that person is critical of the government.

    I can stand on a street corner all day and holler that the government is a d******g organization, and as I’m expressing an opinion of the government the First Amendment protects me. If, however, I stand on that same street corner and say that Anthony Watts is a d******g s***burger, I can get sued into oblivion by any number of means, depending on exactly what was said and how it was said.

    Having said all that… I’ll probably buy this book.

      • DonK31 says “Truth is an absolute defense.”

        And after a few thousand dollars, or tens of thousands, or more in legal fees you may get to present your defense.

      • In Australia truth is not an absolute defence if the statements were published maliciously. Is that the same in the USA?

      • Forrest,

        In the US the truth may be published even if it is malicious. It tends to be punished by the readership if it is in bad taste, but in court nothing can be done so long as it is provable truth.

        Even false innuendo can be defended if it is phrased properly in the initial publications. Reporters do this all the time with items from “unnamed sources” or by writing “there are allegations that so-and-so did such-and-such.” They just have to be sure to use the right weasel words. Later, after the damage is done and the elections are safely past, they will print a mouse print retraction on page H87 stating that it has been learned that the allegations that so-and-so did such-and-such on date xyz was found to be unfounded the paper regrets any confusion caused.

        In other word: standard industry practice.

    • Neil: Mann is suing Steyn for “libel” which is the written/published form of slander (ie. calling someone a “d******g” while standing on street corner.) It has nothing to do with gov’t reprisals against some one expressing an opinion against the gov’t. If memory seerves, Steyn is being sued because of him repeating a quote from another person that the inquiries by Penn State re: Mann’s work was similar to the inquiries into Jerry Sandusky’s behavior. That is what Mann’s suit is about.

      • Not just speaking the truth is protected.
        Also protected is satire.
        So even if you are shamelessly lampooning a person, especially a public figure, there are broad protections backed up by numerous rulings over the years.
        You cannot be successfully sued for making fun of someone.
        Particularly if that someone asked for it by being an idiot and a jackass.

        I would hazard a guess that by the time this is over, more people will know all about what a jackass a certain person is, than if said jackass had not engaged in the further jackassery of suing.

      • The problem with the standard “idiot or jackass” is that such a classification is purely in the eye of the beholder. That is, way to many people consider the definition of a jackass to be anyone who disagrees with me.

      • Nope the court threw out the complaint about the comparison to Sandusky a long time ago a hyperbole.

    • Correct. And while there is a Right to a speedy trial, it is only enumerated for criminal trials. Left unspoken is whether there is a Right to a speedy civil trial. Which, as a practical matter, doesn’t exist in the US whether you think it should be a Right or not.

      • What if there is a sudden flurry of non-criminal suits brought with the intent of bogging down a process, say, for example, construction of a pipeline?

      • Which, as a practical matter, doesn’t exist in the US whether you think it should be a Right or not.

      • @Piper Paul

        In the case of attempting to bog down, per your example, the construction of a pipeline, the suit would have to be joined by other parties opposed to the project. I am not sure what the limit is for plaintiffs joining a suit, but if the numbers of plaintiffs (opposition) is large it would become a ‘Class Action” suit, in which many multiple plaintiffs are involved, such as a lawsuit against a car manufacturer for a general defect in a certain model of car. This system is designed to limit the time wasted by the courts on the same issue.

      • @Dahlquist,

        While that is generally true, I have found that in the case of pipelines and nuclear power plants, there is a strategy put in place whereby the suits are serial by different plaintiffs. Settle one suit and the next comes into place; that way a project can be made so prohibitively expensive as to cause its abandonment. Sometimes the plaintiffs collude with the regulating bodies to file a suit worded in an exact manner to get the result the regulating agency wants. This is particularly true of the environmental groups and the EPA, though the anti-nuclear groups and the DOE are also famous for this tactic.

      • In the heat of the French Revolution, you were tried for any suspected opinions contrary to the status quo of the moment, often in the middle of the night, then you’d be guillotined next day.

        That does seem over-hasty, but four years simply for disclosure? What a farce

    • Actually, if you were to call Anthony that, it would be regarded as an opinion, since clearly someone can not be an inanimate object. If you were to call him a crook, liar, thief, child molester, or anything that could be true of a person, then you would be subject of having your backside handed to you in a lawsuit. The best defense for it in the US is if what you said is the truth (absolute defense regardless of how it reflects on the person’s character or reputation). The US has gone a little overboard, imo, with the these lawsuits. I suspect the estate of Lee Harvey Oswald could sue anyone who wrote that he killed President Kennedy without saing “allegedly,” since he was never found guilty in a court of law. Even at that, to be safe, you would need to say he was found guilty of murder, not simply ‘he murdered’.

      That being said, one of the things we can look forward to when the whole climate change meme collapses is the Streisand Effect. The media will love publishing these quotes when the cause is lost. People who otherwise would never hear of Mann will get to form their own opinions of him – and he won’t like it.

    • If you say that another person is a piece of sh*te, you MAY get sued, if you say that you believe another person is a piece of sh*te… you cannot get sued.

      Freedom of speech doesn’t ONLY protect you from the government, it allows you to state your opinion, whatever that opinion may be.

    • Not sure what a d******g s***burger is, though I can guess. But that is not libel or slander. No one could ever believe Mann could actually be a s***burger in reality.

      One can call Mann uglier than Bigfoot and stupider than a piece of wood. People understand this as opinion, “stupider than a piece of wood” an expression, not a statement of fact. If one says Mann was convicted of robbing a bank, and could not prove that, then they would be in trouble.

  18. Having studied research and statistics in graduate school and taught courses in those subjects as adjunct faculty, it became clear to me years ago that the entire global warming/climate change meme had become a disgrace to science and to the “scientists,” like Mann, who were investing so much energy in promoting it. Ultimately, I followed a career path outside of research and university work, and I am now retired, so I never really had any “skin in the game” so to speak and have just been an interested bystander.

    For me the bigger disgrace has been all of those scientists who damn well knew that guys like Mann and Jones were full of cr@p and did not speak up for fear of alienating their colleagues, losing professional standing, research grants or their jobs. Yeah. It takes guts, but if enough had spoken up years ago a lot of this nonsense with the IPCC, governments and politicians could have been avoided, a lot of bullying might not have happened, and a lot of frightened school children would not still be getting told the myth that their species is responsible for the destruction of the planet. It has all indeed been a terrible disgrace.

    • Hear hear jbird. Spot on and from a geologist that has tried to understand what environments have been like over the geological eras/epochs etc to locate mineral deposits it has been depressing to see the shonky treatment of climate data to suit their cause rather than use science to unravel the mysteries of our forever changing climate.

    • but if enough had spoken up years ago a lot of this nonsense with the IPCC, governments and politicians could have been avoided

      And thousands, or tens of thousands of careers would never have been made. I am sure that from the late 1980s on to the present, riding the CAGW bandwagon was a rational, considered career choice. And for many, that choice has worked out very well indeed. Look at the annual COP, with it’s thousands of participants and ten times that many associated in one way or another. The bandwagon ride is not restricted to scientists by any means. In the otherwise somewhat austere environment of science funding, going with CAGW was like hitting the lottery.

      • I also think that a lot of it was due to self-selection of climatologists.

        There were hardly any climatologists when the AGW thing got going. So who decided to take up the profession? Only those who thought they were doing god. The ones who thought the world was ending and they could help.

        Such people are not likely to be looking for evidence that it’s actually not that bad.

      • Tony; You are absolutely right. However, if the money that has been squandered on climate research had been diverted to other kinds of inquiry, we might have had some productive results that would have actually benefitted people, and those same careers could have been made in other fields. Similarly, all of the people in Journalism or politics who hitched their wagons to the AGW meme, could have written about, or promoted, those other things instead of endlessly and tediously beating the climate change horse. Our government and the foundations that have continued to fund the AGW research are also part of the disgrace.

      • True, climate ‘science’ went from little know less cared about and poorly funded area to major league with more money that it knew what to do with , its leading figuers having the world leaders numbers of speed dial and massive growth in student numbers and academic position.

        And when you consider the reality that many of these leading figuers could not otherwise get a job teaching science at a second rate high school , you can see why its very important that the ‘right results’ are obtained to keep the whole thing on track.

        Its like a snake oil salesman being in the official position of person told to carry out the research to see if snake-oil is effective.

    • The science community should be shamed for accepting trees as a proxy for global temperature. It’s just too absurd to even consider that, of all the growth-affecting variables that trees are subject to, some would be in a locale where only temperature was changing, AND the local temperatures accurately tracked the global average temperature trends. Absurdity squared.

      • dbstealey: That’s doubly true if the tree is growing in an area that is water limited. Like Bristlecone pines.

      • Climate ‘science’, has with meteorology is full of such ‘better than nothing ‘ sources of data, it is one of the reason that even now they cannot give you a weather forecast for more than 72 hours ahead worth a dam.

  19. Mann never intended to go through with a real trial and discovery. (He would be asked to cough some of those UVa E-Mails, for one thing.) Steyn must be seen to have beaten him anyway. Thus, forcing Mann to put up or withdraw is the only move available that does not bleed Steyn to death as Mann has already done to others..

    The main thing to fear is government’s reaction to using free speech against government interest. The recent Climate Inquisition and the Senator’s RICO threats are more reliable indicators of future action than are climate models of weather.

    • If you think issues of free speech do not matter to science, in government and politics, science is a malleable form of speech . And a rather more malleable form of speech than it should be, thanks, in part, to activists masquerading as scientists and scientific organizations playing politics.

  20. all I can say you are right and we all know you are right so we are all behind you Mark Steyn

  21. The saddest thing is I think Mann really believes that the longer he waits the more he will be proved right when we all know that mother nature is a sceptic and the longer she’s given the more sceptical she becomes.

  22. It seems that Mann wants a speedy resolution like he wants to debate climate change. I.e., not.

  23. The American people should be getting very concerned with the way the legal system is deteriorating. It’s not good.

    • It’s not just Scientists, it’s a whole bunch of appointees and others in our Government not doing their jobs because they’re riding high and mighty on obamas socialist bandwagon and violating our rights and the Constitution whenever it suits them. I sincerely hope every single one of them who supported this fiasco gets fired and even prosecuted after 2016. Dictators do not belong here. Nor do their cronies.

  24. Judith had it right when she said to Mann (on her site) that Steyn is a formidable opponent. She did her homework and got it right. As usual.

    Remember that this time’s different. This suit won’t just fade away into the ozone.Steyn has counter-sued for millions, and Mann can’t just drop that one to show what a good guy he is. Or settle it. Or limit Steyn’s other maneuvers. Nope

    This time the mouse trap caught a bear.A bear who’s done this before.

    • He may. That’s up to the jury to decide. If Steyn wins, the jury determines what damages to award, including legal fees.

      One other point, it’s not uncommon for civil cases to take several years. I was on jury duty many years ago and got called up on personal injury lawsuit. The incident had occurred nearly four years prior. The judge explained that the reason the case took so long to get to trial was because civil cases are a low priority compared to criminal trials. The reason being is that a criminal defendant has a right to “speedy” trial.

      • Reg. “That’s up to a jury to decide.”

        I believe that the case is in front of an Appeals Court with a panel of judges. No jury.

      • @ Dahlquist June 12, 2015 at 8:03 am

        I was referring to when the case actually goes to trial. You are correct though theoretically there could be no jury and the judge could decide the case, but this almost never happens. Either side can request a jury trial and they always do. It’s harder to fool a judge than it is to fool a jury.

      • Dahlquist: What’s being appealed is a procedural decision by the trial court judge.
        The case itself hasn’t gone to trial yet.

  25. In a world full of disreputable men, Mann plumbs new lows of scum-infested, bottom-dwelling, disreputable, despicable behaviour. He isn’t even half a Mann.

  26. God Love Mark Steyn! I just bought the new book and another item on his site that was the most expensive thing I could find. I think Steyn is brilliant and I just want to contribute the best I can to his effort against the Warmest onslaught.

    Mark, where can we contribute directly to your defense?

  27. Whether the judges issue an opinion in a timely manner, or take their sweet time, they still get paid the same.

    • I’ve said for years that the primary purpose of the legal system is to employ lawyers. (Judges are almost always lawyers.)

  28. Don’t expect any decision until after Dec 2015 – when it would be too late to do much good.

  29. It should not be lost that a very willing main stream press enabled (and continue to do so) the activities that led to this book. That is another book to be written, and a far more damning one, at that. Those publications and the authors who compiled such rubbish need to be held to account. May I suggest a title: “To Serve Mann”, to pull a hat trick from Damon Knight’s great short story – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29 with the telling ending: “It’s a crook book!”.

  30. It would be nice if this was in Epub/mobi format – easier to read and link to rererences.

    • Or a new section that allows common OBSERVERS and input, just in case they have something really important for the scientist of the world to see or hear. (and im not talking about light show pictures).

  31. “They are not scientists, just bad engineers. They didn’t discover global warming, they invented it out of whole cloth. And their machine doesn’t even work.” — Me

    • The warming was there to begin with as the planet recovered from the LIA. They just slapped an “explanation” on it with a bit of reasonable laboratory back up, generated models with tipping points that are mathematical artifacts, and then ran around like Chicken Little. Mann probably isn’t a fraud, simply a fool who believes his own opinions to the detriment of anyone who listens to him. There are many others just like him.

  32. I believe that the Mann/Steyn legal process would not be an issue in the UK. Their tort law is based on the principal of “[loser] pays” cost plus damages. This greatly minimizes such law suits. Only those in which the plaintiff thinks he/she has a good chance of winning proceed. Looser pays would work equally well in the US but our trial lawyers would not allow it. They make huge amounts of money with frivolous law suits as I am well aware as an expert witness in some.

    • Within the gray region of the hockey stick chart there is room for much of the chart on the left. The problem seems to be that few scientists of Mann’s caliber are willing to deal with ambiguity forthrightly; and the press, politicians and general laymen don’t understand it. Well, there is also the dishonest part about changing data source in the hockey stick chart without clear explanation, but a better appreciation of ambiguity would render that moot.

      • Kevin,

        Actually, there isn’t.

        The tip of the blade of Mann’s stick is far above even the gray region.\

        It is pure, simple, unadulterated HS, as in horse manure.

  33. Imagine that
    There are folks who believe in AGW and also
    Believe that the HS is crap.

    Think about that.

    • What I think about is the essence of your statement….”There are folks who believe…”

      WOW!!!

      • MikeB
        June 12, 2015 at 11:04 am
        Think about what you just said! (What do think HS means?)
        =====================================================================
        I know what HS is.
        I am suggesting that there are exceptionally dim people out there that know that the HS is a giant turd of false research.
        So it shouldn’t be a surprise to find out SOME CAGW cultists can see the HS is crap.

      • May just be difficulty of language at times, but not sure that is fair.

        If you are a rational person you do believe in stuff. It’s just that you need evidence before you believe or accept something to be worth believing. In religion all that is required is personal revelation or faith in the ultimate authority of church or scripture. Neither of which can act as empirical evidence.

        In my opinion and probably yours there is not nearly sufficient evidence to believe in AGW. For Mosher, there is apparently enough evidence without the HS to “believe”.

    • Mosher –

      I assume you are one of those “folks” (pls correct me if I’m wrong).
      Could you please define “AGW” for us?
      – How much & how fast?
      – Does it exceed natural variability now or in the future?
      – Irreversible?
      – An existential threat?
      – Unprecedented?
      – Net positive or net negative (to the “ecosystem”, to “mankind”)?

      Merci,

      Kurt in Switzerland

    • Mosher:

      There are folks who believe in AGW and also
      Believe that the HS is crap.

      Perhaps they should file an amicus brief on behalf of Steyn then. Have you thought about that?

    • Steven,

      You are correct that AGW is a faith-based belief rather than a scientific observation. There is no evidence that it has actually happened in the climate system.

      There are however valid observations supporting the fact of local human effects on weather and climate. Las Vegas is a lot hotter outside (and colder on the inside) now than 100 years ago, for instance, thanks to human activity there. But of man-made global warming from radiative physics and GHE from man-made GHGs, not so much. Zero detectable, in fact.

      But if AGW ever were to exist, it would be a good thing, as has been the addition of an extra molecule of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules, ie up from about three to four, since c. AD 1850.

      • I remember a study from several years back regarding California’s central valley. Seems there had been noticeable cooling during the day and warming during the night, that many attributed to irrigation.

    • Another knee slapper, I think- hard to tell what Mosher is ever saying.
      I’ll just take HS to mean a useful horse byproduct loved by gardens.

  34. Regarding the outcome of this all, I can’t help but reflect on the Manny Act scene from “Slapshot” describing hockey penalties:
    “You do that, you go to the box, you know. Two minutes, by yourself, you know and you feel shame, you know. And then you get free.”

    I’m guessing that Mann won’t even feel the shame part.

  35. I just smile when I think about Mark Steyn. His tactics are pure Eisenhower. One of Eisenhower’s guiding principles was…If you can’t find a solution to the problem, make the problem bigger. This book will make the problem bigger for Mann, himself, and Penn State hopefully.

  36. I’ll do my part and buy the book.

    Steyn is brilliant, and he knows his subject well, better than any attorney he could hire. He has a rare opportunity to take that knowledge and directly confront Mann, question him on scientific principles, and utterly destroy him on the witness stand. Of course, before that there is certain to be a deposition of Mann, from which there will be a written transcript that we all will be able to review, if it’s not kept confidential.

    Ordinarily, he wouldn’t get an open court opportunity because judges often lean on parties to settle. Many don’t like trials and they can issue rulings against recalcitrant parties that make it difficult, and expensive, to proceed. But Steyn is representing himself, and he is one of the few people to benefit to some degree from legal proceedings, because they increase his exposure and potential book sales. The drain on his time and resources is, I hope, less than the benefits he’s accruing.

  37. ‘A Disgrace To The Profession’, on the surface he may be right and in any other of science he certainly be right. However the reality is that much of Mann’s poor personal and professional behaviour is not only normal for those working in climate ‘science’ ,is it actual rewarded and celebrated .

    Do although he may stand out from others , partly thanks to his universe side ego , it if not really fair to say he is a ‘A Disgrace To The Profession’ has this profession is one that is often far from honourable ,honest or in the habit of practising good science. A blacker sheep amongst a dirty flock is perhaps a better way to describe Mann.

    However the court case cannot come soon enough and you do have to wonder just why there is all the ducking and diving given Mann’s claims .

  38. Mann has already been thrown under the bus by those responsible for propagating the AGW meme. Just another useful idiot that’s no longer useful. The only reason they’ll defend him is to mitigate any shade that could possibly tarnish the movement. They’ll continue in their attempt to bleed Steyn into submission but I suspect what started as their ‘plan’ has turned into an ouroboros when Steyn counter sued and now they are faced with an enemy of their own making. I no longer trust our legal system to interpret the law properly at the macro level but find it hard to believe Steyn won’t triumph. I’ll continue to support him.

    • The math on this one is pretty easy. With Mann out of the running, more research dollars for everyone else.

  39. Mosh says: ” There are folks who believe in AGW and also Believe that the HS is crap.”

    There are other sets in the universal Venn. Among those: Those who don’t truly believe in AGW but do want a “new world order” supplanting “business as usual”. Those who do believe in AGW but don’t believe the unspoken, implicit, “catastrophic” part. Those who believe in catastrophic climate change but don’t believe it is any worse, or a higher priority, than other catastrophic risks like Carrington events, Tusgunka events, nuclear war, Spanish Flu… There are those who believe in AGW but believe market solutions will kick in as the costs manifest, (as Julian Simon advised Paul Erlich about rare metals). There are those who believe coal is dirty, and solar is clean, and don’t care about CO2 or warming except as an excuse to move from coal to solar. There are those who strongly disbelieve in a “young Venus” solar system, but nevertheless believe Immanuel Velikosky was deprived of (by Carl Sagan, among others) his fair debate and unjustifiably maligned for his (admittedly far from perfect) Heinrich Schliemann-style approach to paleo-cosmology.

    The standard formulation about who does, and doesn’t belong to which of two teams of believers is wholly unhelpful.

    I believe in free speech, personally. Let the crazies talk.

    • Speaking of Velikovsky, the best math teacher I had was an avid fan. Didn’t make him a bad math teacher.

      As was brought up by Bjorn Lomborg recently, there are people who are anti-vaccination but have sipped the AGW Kool-Aide.

      I don’t know where anyone is going with all this, though. I’ll Godwin myself and point out the very old “Hitler was a non-smoking vegetarian who loved dogs*” meme. Is that supposed to say something about non-smokers, dog lovers and vegetarians?

      * Yes, I know he wasn’t strictly what we call a vegetarian, being prescribed a bland diet for a bad stomach. but that’s the meme, not history.

  40. There is no legal requirement, at least in the U.S., of recognizing a person’s attainment of a doctorate. Perhaps Mann, Jones, and Rahmstorf should be socially stripped of that achievement by not referring to them as Dr.s.

    I would tend to just refer to them by their name, alone, but perhaps if we used Mr. Mann, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Rahmstorf, it would emphasize the point.

  41. Science a “profession?”

    Yes, it has it’s societies and academies, but one can be a highly regarded practicing scientist without membership. Like wise there are no licensing or disbarrment of accreditation or license to practice
    MD’s, DO’s, nurses, lawyers, engineers, surveyors, accountants, financial service planners advisors, stock brokers, those are professions that are regulated and bad actors tossed out (barred).

  42. “In the fall of 2014, not a single amicus brief was filed on Dr Mann’s behalf, not one. He claims he’s “taking a stand for science”, but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.”

    [This poster uses a fake email address. ~mod.]

    • “Probably”… might, may, could, believed, projected, expected, modeled, … there are some more weasel words at your disposal, Magma.

    • Magma,

      IMO the lack of support is because real scientists know that:

      1) Tree rings are not thermometers, in that other factors affect their growth much more than T, and that

      2) Mann hid the decline by cutting off lines that turned against him, and obscuring that fact behind a mass of spaghetti in his bogus graph, and that

      3) His statistical methods were so inappropriate and amateurish that any set of numbers plugged into them would produce ah HS shape, and that

      4) Mann must have known all this, given his training in statistics and the fact that his own dendro “data” didn’t match his advocacy after c. 1960, such that

      5) He is clearly guilty of scientific malpractice and fraud aforethought and in cold blood.

    • yeah, that must be it. Slam dunks often take over 4 years to come to trial and 2 years for the plaintiff to file a complaint containing no obvious lies.

  43. I find the logic missing. Karl basically cannibalizes both surface and satellite datasets using the “yeah, but this dataset is warmer” argument. So throw the rest out or adjust it all to match Karl et Al(consensus). Now we have the CAGW community dropping all their faulty adjusted to bias datasets in favor of the new kid. Makes sense. So Karl is basically spitting on everyone else pointing out the inadequate methods employed in both surface and satellite surveys…nothing new to any of us, and the CAGW community gives in. So much for self reflection and logic.

  44. In Australia republishing defamatory statements of others makes both the publisher and the republisher liable. Is it the same in the USA? The question for the court then is whether Mann already has such a poor reputation that none of this could harm that reputation. Perhaps the argument is no loss = no defamation.

    Interesting.

  45. Mann’s modus operandi is EXACTLY what one expects from a liar. Lies to support lies to support lies. The original half truth has been buried in so much utter rubbish that any original grain of truth has been utterly lost. For as long as the liar can make up new lies, deflect scrutiny, move the goal posts, manipulate the data, gag evidence , slander opponents etc the lie persists. The ultimate goal is to die before the truth is ever revealed. In some cases, the lie persists well beyond the death of its creator. Marxism, Keynesian economics and a certain religion fall in to this category.

    The truth is the mortal enemy of the liar. They know that they are history if they ever get uncovered-everything will unravel back to the original lie. In Mann’s case, the entire global warming “cause” could unravel. If global warming/climate change/extreme weather/whatever witch hunt of the day is shown to be a fraud, hopefully the UN, who are the chief promoters of the “cause” will be found out. Then there are the other powerful groups intertwined. Things could become very ugly indeed. Do not be surprised if Michael Mann tries to stall things till he eventually dies.

    Something we must all take note of-the IPCC , offending climate scientists and their puppetmasters could very easily just let the climate caper just slip in to obscurity to get themselves off the hook, but the fact that they continue the line and press it even further(look forward to more and more propaganda in the lead up to Paris) shows that there is much more to the string of lies than merely covering a litany of lies. A “normal” liar would love to have the ability to quietly walk away from their lies if it were possible. The hidden agenda behind all the climate caper is horrendous to say the least.

    Do not be surprised if Mann’s lies outlive him.

    • I would not be surprised if the intent is to delay whatever legal action there is until after the Paris COP. There are important political goals that could be completely missed if a lot of dirty climate washing is being publicly washed by Mark. Mark’s book is in fact a preview of that dirty washing.

  46. Mann claims he’s “taking a stand for science” – that is hilarious.
    I think that Michael Mann has no idea what science is really about.
    These are quotes from Karl Popper in his book “The logic of scientific discovery”
    “what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.”

  47. Listened to Steyn’s presentation t Heartland Institute this week in DC and ordered book. His presentation is dynamite and exactly right.

  48. I watched Moncktons ICCC speech and thought it was great. He is a better American Patriot than many Americans themselves are. He certainly understands freedom from tyranny.

  49. Mann may argue, in defense of his hockey stick analogy, that it is actually spot on and the problem arose simply because the IPCC got the ‘lie’ wrong? In other words his analogy was, in this case, an anomaly. Just say’n

    • If Cook had the facts on his side he wouldn’t need a fancy psychology program to promote catastrophe theory, now would he?

  50. The most profound science fraud of the twentieth century meets the most profound science fraud of the twenty first century both composed of concoctions of real into a phony mass — Michael “Piltdown” Mann.

  51. It is a pity that Mark chose “A Disgrace To The Profession” as the title of this book. A book written about the ability of the US legal system to litigate a dispute between Mark Steyn and Michael Mann, and particularly the District of Columbia courts system on the surface would warrant a similar title. It has cost too much for both parties, and has taken way too long to settle.

    • Gary Slenders

      You contend

      It is a pity that Mark chose “A Disgrace To The Profession” as the title of this book.

      I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think the excellent choice of title is “a pity”. Please explain .

      Richard

    • My understanding of the situation is that Mann does not want there to be a ‘resolution’. His objective is to keep his lawsuit permanently hanging over Steyn in an attempt to harass and silence him.

  52. Thanks Mark!
    I look forward to reading your new book.
    Just ordered 2 copies.
    One for me, one for a birthday present.

  53. to Jim Brock:
    The sheepskin doesn’t matter – it is what you do that counts, do you apply methods and use principles that are generally recognized as “science”.
    Problem of course is by who – the “Post-Normal Science” bunch (a derivative of Post-Modernism, essentially use of emotions) or respected people like Richard Feynman.

    BTW, in the US and Canada, “engineer” most often means an applied scientist, but perhaps a train driver is a “train “engineer” as it is in Canada-India-UK. There are boiler engineers (operate the safety-critical heating system that produces hot water or steam to heat buildings) and in Canada and the UK “Aircraft Maintenance Engineer” (aircraft mechanics, called A&P or the higher-capability IA people in the US).

  54. Several months ago, Steyn wasn’t even set up to ship to Canada cost-effectively. Ironic as he lives in Canada? and grew up in the UK. (US market 10 times that of Canada, by population.)

    “….it did so using a handful of unreliable tree-rings processed through a statistical method fished out of a can of alphabet soup.”
    Steyn seems to deliberately go beyond just to tweak people.
    The “can of alphabet soup” line is silly as used, it would be better IMJ if written “….as valid as one processed through a statistical method fished out of a can of alphabet soup.”, though it is an odd analogy in any case.
    Steyn seems to get somewhat carried away by his own way with words.

    IMJ Steyn made a serious error in not retracting the reference to the Sandusky case, especially after the author he quoted retracted.

    I fervently hope that Mann loses big time, but while I may buy his book my sympathy for Steyn is diminished by his unwise decisions.

Comments are closed.