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!
Steyn 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
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.
Manny Acta
Most people with super egos feel no shame at all
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.
Ordered the book. We need more Steyn’s. Good for him. Mann just keeps looking smaller.
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.
‘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 .
I ordered a copy.
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.
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.
Thanks, Mark Steyn, for your clear words defending the integrity of science.
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.
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).
“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.]
Magma,
You forgot the “/sarc” tag.
“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.
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.
Order is in. Thanks Mark.
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.
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.”
Listened to Steyn’s presentation t Heartland Institute this week in DC and ordered book. His presentation is dynamite and exactly right.
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.
Didn’t get a chance to watch or hear any of the other speakers. Wish I had the time then. Sounds like it was great and hope it has a positive impact for the cause.
You can go to the Heritage web site and view all the presentations…and the ones from past conferences.
I guess the link would be nice… http://climateconference.heartland.org/
And I always get the heritage and Heartland foundations confused…drat all these think tanks with similar H names!
@Owen
Thanks Owen in GA. Appreciate the link.
Hillsdale College as well.
E-version please.
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
http://www.dreamwitness.com/WUWT/WUWT%203%20small.jpg
Mickey badly needs a Steyn remover.
+10 🙂
It (Climate Science) looks like full on psychological warfare…
http://phys.org/news/2015-06-countering-science-denial.html
If Cook had the facts on his side he wouldn’t need a fancy psychology program to promote catastrophe theory, now would he?
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.
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
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.