Steyn steps up 'sticking it to the Mann' -files for expedited hearing

From the “four years is a long time to wait for justice” department

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 2016

CONTACT: Amy K. Mitchell

Mark Steyn Files For Expedited Hearing in Mann v. Steyn, et al

Washington, DC — Today, Mark Steyn requested that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia expedite the hearing and lift the stay of discovery in the case of Michael Mann v. Steyn, et al. It has been two years since the case was referred to the Appellate Court, where it is remains in limbo.

Mr. Steyn has asked the court to move forward with the case as material witnesses for the defense have passed away since the referral.

“Something needed to be done to jumpstart this case, a case that threatens the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms. The case was brought in mid-2012. It is now four years later and the appeals from defendants’ special motions to dismiss have not been decided, nor has discovery proceeded,” stated Dan Kornstein, Steyn’s lawyer. “The passage of time since the appeal was argued in this case a year and a half ago while a stay of proceedings was in effect at the trial level has stalled a case whose very existence chills freedom of speech. To correct this situation and get the case moving, Mark Steyn filed this request to ask the trial court to lift the stay of proceedings even while the appeal is pending. We hope the trial judge grants the request.”

Mr. Steyn’s request is in line with case law, as cited in the amicus brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the defendants, stating that SLAPP laws exist “to remedy the ‘nationally recognized problem’ of abusive lawsuits against speech on public issues by providing defendants ‘with substantive rights to expeditiously and economically dispense of litigation’ that qualified as a SLAPP – in other words, to nip such lawsuits in the bud.” Furthermore, “[T]he special motion to dismiss must generally be granted prior to discovery, D.C. Code § 16-5502(c)(1), ‘[t]o ensure [that] a defendant is not subject to the expensive and time consuming discovery that is often used in a SLAPP as a means to prevent or punish.’”

The defense of this case, due to its First Amendment implications, is supported by: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Advance Publications, Inc., Alibritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, The Association of American Publishers, Inc., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Amendment Coalition, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Gannett Co., Inc., Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, The McClatchy Company, MediaNews Group. Inc., d/b/a Digital First Media. The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association. National Public Radio, Inc., NBCUniversal Media. LLC, The New York Times Company, News Corp. Newspaper Association of America. North Jersey Media Group Inc.. Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Reuters America LLC, The Seattle Times Company, Society of Professional Journalists, Students Press Law Center, Time Inc., The Washington Post.

Related documents:

Mark Steyn’s Renewed Request for Expedited Hearing and to Left Stay of Discovery and Supplemental Brief on Plaintiff: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/7531.pdf

Brief Amici Curiae of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 26 Other Organizations in Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6515.pdf

Brief of Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn in Support of Neither Party: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6516.pdf

===========================

Footnote by Anthony :

If it is taking this long due to Mann and his attorney dragging their feet, obviously Mann was never all that outraged to begin with.

Advertisements

118 thoughts on “Steyn steps up 'sticking it to the Mann' -files for expedited hearing

      • This is not about Mann or Steyn. It’s about the Obama selected liberal judge. They hav politicized the IRS, why nor the legal system to?

      • When has either the IRS or the Legal system not been political. To suggest that is new or unique to either party is extremely naive.

      • Yes there’s more at stake here than just Mann’s giant ego.
        They are afraid to reveal their bogus climate claptrap and
        CO2 / temperature balderdash as evidence in court. Should
        this “evidence” then prove false and fraudulent, then they can
        be accused of perjury whilst under oath. Very serious indeed.
        It’s all very well mouthing off whilst behind a stage lectern,
        or in front of a crowd of supporters at some green rally,
        or even on the TV screens, as seen on YouTube … etc.
        However say those same things in court, under oath,
        and use some fraudulent documents to support your
        otherwise lunatic assertions, and it’s the pokey for you !

  1. Mann’s strategy was always to starve Steyn out. Steyn’s feistiness might cause that to backfire.
    The entire case against Steyn was based on a strawman to begin with.

    • It’s a strategy that nearly ruined Dr.Tim Ball.
      Like a tired old boxing champ, Mann gives it
      the telegraphed haymaker and hoped to knock
      out Steyn with one punch. Alas Steyn does not
      have a glass jaw after all, and is relentless.
      See this excellent interview from April 25th 2016.
      “Mark Steyn in-depth interview. During their discussion,
      Weingarten and Steyn discuss the chilling of free speech
      by the climate alarmists and their enablers in the political
      and legal system, the stakes of the defamation suit filed
      against Steyn by climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann”
      oyez, oyez, oyez – now hear this ….

      Superb analysis by Mark Steyn !

    • Mann must show damages. The longer he waits the more he can claim or the greater the likelihood something will manifest that he can use!??! …, I guess.

    • The way things have been going with the UN /EU/US Democrats World Totalitarian Project over the last couple of decades, I feared the Bill of Rights itself was going to be rescinded.
      With the unprecedented global surge of right wingers even in countries without experience in this genre, rising up against the crescendo of idiocy of this era, maybe Mann should take his best shot asap to keep his costs down to about $40 million or so.

      • The surge in the Right is a direct reaction to the failure of the Left to adequately represent people. I can’t really speak for US politics (being a Brit), but it would appear that the rise of Trump is the natural reaction to the failure of the Democrats to reflect US public opinion. Much the same is going on in Britain. Our EU referendum is only being allowed in order to placate those politicians on the Right from defecting to a (seen as) right-wing party (UKIP – which isn’t really to the political right at all, more of a common-sense party). Otherwise we wouldn’t be getting a sniff of a referendum, all our political parties hate the idea of democracy (as most governments do, it gets in the way of their ideology). It’s all interesting to watch.

      • In the US, it’s not just the Left (Democrats) that has failed to listen to the electorate causing the rise of Trump. The Right (Republicans), so-called, has also failed to listen to the electorate. That’s why we are seeing an outright socialist Sanders, who at least is probably the most honest of the candidates, and a populist Trump do so well.

      • The problem with populism is that it’s little more than socialism with a strong social conservative streak.

      • MarkW
        I’m not sure exactly what you mean, can we flesh out this thought. I generally agree with what you say, but this seems a bit vague to me.
        I have to admit I’m a little confused as to exactly what populism is, but evidently if I support Trump, I’m a populist;]
        I actually thought it was closer to nationalism, but I may be way off there.
        Thanks.

      • SMC,
        I was thinking the same thing about Sanders, but then I thought about a bit and realized … If he is honest (and believes in what he is saying) then he has got be one big stupid & ignorant son of a gun.
        So, now I figure is dishonest ….

      • Yeah the Right promised the Evangelicals and social conservatives that they would bring the US in line with their beliefs. They promised them every election and somebody has finally begun to wise up. Or how the Republicans took over the Tea Party. The Democrats abandoned their natural constituency, labor, decades ago see https://smile.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464840296&sr=1-1&keywords=listen+liberal

      • Populists in general dislike wealthy people and big companies, and want to use government to control them.
        Populists in general think trade with other nations is bad.

      • Glenn, no deep mysterie but all american :
        ‘I have to admit I’m a little confused as to exactly what populism is, but evidently if I support Trump, I’m a populist;]’
        _______________________________
        populist == advertising / sell / try to make friends
        Obviously Trump isn’t even good at that – but why should he when there’s marketing agencies.

      • Okay, so why do people call Trump a populist. Business folks tend to want businesses to be free of govt. interventions. Perhaps the labels are incomplete to really explain someone?
        So I feel better, NOT a populist. Whew!!!

  2. …The fact Mann and his lawyers fear facing Steyn in court, tells you a lot about the shaky ground they stand on !

  3. Steyn already underwent discovery. Mann has not. Steyn’s countersuit against Mann is separate from and unrelated to NR motion to dismiss Mann’s suit under anti-Slapp, denied and on appeal on the issue of whether appealable at that point. Steyn’s motion should be granted concerning his countersuit.

    • Did Steyn voluntarily undergo discovery, or did the courts force him to do so while allowing Mann to avoid it? Where’s the fairness in requiring one side to undergo discovery long before the other side has to do so?

      • It was voluntary, a tactic to get Mann to reciprocate and move the case forward. Didn’t work. Mann has everything to fear from discovery (which is under oath and subject to perjury). And Mann knows from Steyn’s book that he has large caliber loaded weapons. Mann cannot drop his suit because of Steyn’s equally valide countersuit that Steyn will NOT drop. Mann is in a very difficult place, and itnlooks like the stalling is about over.

      • Mann is a girl. Maybe that’s what’s given this administration the chutzpah to issue idiotic decrees on restroom utilization. /sarc

      • Hey! On behalf of all REAL females, I object to you trying to foist Mann off onto us. We do not want him, especially in the ladies’ room.

  4. Mann has stepped away from Climate science because of the law suits brought against him, so he says. In other words, he is trying to avoid discovery. Further, he says he feels abandoned by his fellow hockey stickers. In other words, they are giving him the shitty end of the stick.

  5. M Mann is just waiting for technology in sport to change the shape of hockey sticks.

  6. “If it is taking this long due to Mann and his attorney dragging their feet, obviously Mann was never all that outraged to begin with.” It has nothing to do with outrage and everything to do with bullying. If Mann wasn’t prodded and financially backed for this suit it would have never happened. I’m sure he was told ….and believed…. he would be doing a service for the good of climate science. I’m guessing he’s becoming more and more worried as the trial approaches (whenever). It’s not about money but reputation and he knows he’ll lose one thing money can’t buy.

    • Outside his own mind, Mann never had that much of a reputation to begin with.
      Just look at how fast his friends have disappeared now that his usefulness is over.

    • cephus0 commented: “Can’t wait for that show. Trying to defend cagw in a court of law is going to be like a Bob Newhart sketch…”
      You can expect the council to steer away from defending or proving CAGW . The people that are paying for his representation will quickly offer Mann to the wolves to see that happen, especially if he loses.

    • Trying to defend cagw in a court of law is going to be like a Bob Newhart sketch.

      The case isn’t actually about cagw. It’s about free speech. Mark Steyn expressed an opinion that Dr. Mann didn’t like. Mann sued Steyn in order to ruin him with lawyers’ fees as a result of defending himself. This is called a SLAPP suit. It stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.
      In the normal course of events, Mann could drop the suit and Steyn would be stuck paying his legal bills. That’s plenty of punishment. A decent defense can cost more than a million dollars.
      Three things make this case different:
      1 – Mark Steyn has a bunch of ‘friends of the court’ on his side. No journalist wants to see Mann win this case.
      2 – Civil cases are different than criminal cases in one important respect. In criminal cases, the defendant doesn’t have to supply incriminating evidence. This is a civil case. Both sides get ‘discovery’. That means the other side has to supply requested documents. That’s going to be painfully embarassing for Mann, which is why he is dragging his feet.
      3 – Steyn has counter sued Mann. That means Mann can’t avoid discovery by dropping the case.
      Because the discovered documents are going to be worse than embarassing for Mann, it almost doesn’t matter whether or not he wins. Hint – he’s not going to win. This could wreck Mann’s career.

      • One can only hope it does take a Wrecking Ball to Mann’s career. Mann has done great damage to Science, World, Consumers stuck buying “Greenie” products, and Taxpayers who have been forced to fund the entire Global Warming Sham-wow.

      • Mann’s “career” is so bad that what light is shed on it might be an improvement.

    • Don’t need to prove or disprove CAGW, but do need to show that free speech allows Mark to comment on the fact that hockey stick is unproven, and contains potentially fraudulent analysis/data – plenty of potential evidence on that. This doesn’t need to be a “show trial” on Global Warming, and shouldn’t be – I don’t like the idea of courts ruling on science, and no real scientist would want that either.
      Steyn just needs to show that he’s entitled to his opinion, and there’s some reason why Mann’s work could be characterized as a fraud – certainly there are plenty of that opinion, given how his work has been raked over the coals, and how much internal discussion about it is in “climate gate”, etc. Best path for Mark is to win, not try to move a liberal court to repudiate the “concensus”.

  7. does anybody remember the SCO vs IBM lawsuit about who owned linux. Mann and his team seem to be behaving much as the SCO side did.

    • If Dr. Mann behaves the way SCO did, he’s in big trouble. As far as I can tell, SCO was engaged in a scorched earth campaign spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about Linux. The problem is the ‘scorched earth’ part. SCO no longer exists.

  8. Mikey’s gonna get SLAPPed with his own hockey sticks. They need to stick it to the Mann.

  9. Everyone who bought Mark’s books and CDs has invested in the outcome of this case. We need to continue to buy his latest books and any new CDs produced. We all have a vested interest in free speech, and Mark is at the tip of our spear. Support Mark!

  10. Whole case is 3-years past due process. Judge that has allowed this case to sit and sit and sit, should be removed from bench.
    Mann’s foot-dragging demonstrates his suit was never about seeking Justice, it was about abusing legal system to intimidate.

  11. Mann is a hero of the day for putting up with this.
    No scientist should be harassed by a well funded campaign, including buying adwords against his name, to do defamation.
    If a paper is wrong it won’t be reproducible. In the case of MBH 1999, it has been reproduced.
    If you don’t like the results, you need to get a pack of cards and deal with it.

    • “Mann is a hero of the day…”
      Hero’s don’t Fabricate, Mislead, or Lie.

      • Dems,
        You’re right, they don’t do those things – so that clearly makes Mann the “anti-hero”, and Mark the Hero. Find something wrong with his book on the subject, if you can (quoting climate scientists), and bring it to this forum, or be quiet and learn something. You can certainly find plenty wrong with Mann’s work – doesn’t take much of a Google search to turn that up.

      • Dems B. Dcvrs wrote: Hero’s don’t Fabricate, Mislead, or Lie.
        The reason Steyn is using a first amendment argument rather than having the court go over Mann’s work is because Mann didn’t Fabricate, Mislead or Lie.
        It’s perfectly scientific to attack the work, try to reproduce it, to publish a different temperature reconstruction, and to suggest reasons why yours is the more accurate one where there are differences.
        The “skeptics” have done none of those things.
        Meanwhile, the scientific community has reproduced the temperature history over and over again as other proxies are uncovered, leaving the “skeptics” more and more irrelevant, but more and more furious with their ad-hominems: Inviting further irrelevance as their rage against irrelevance increases.
        But these are also personal attacks, and that is indefensible.

      • I love it when trolls have to try to change the subject.
        Since you are so obviously ignorant Seth, I will try to type really slow so that you can keep up.
        Mann sued Steyn claiming that Steyn damaged his reputation when Steyn told the truth about Mann.
        That suit is ongoing.
        Steyn counter sued Mann claiming that Mann’s suit was illegitimate.
        That suit is also ongoing.
        Other’s have joined the battle, including the ACLU, noting that if Mann wins, this will be a huge strike against the 1st amendment.

      • Seth on June 2, 2016 at 12:21 am
        Dems B. Dcvrs wrote: Hero’s don’t Fabricate, Mislead, or Lie.
        The reason Steyn is using a first amendment argument rather than having the court go over Mann’s work is because Mann didn’t Fabricate, Mislead or Lie.
        ____________
        Seth, anything typed onto the Keyboard closed with Post Comment adds text to the internet.
        ____________
        Well done.

      • MarkW June 2, 2016 at 7:27 am
        I love it when trolls have to try to change the subject.
        Since you are so obviously ignorant Seth, I will try to type really slow so that you can keep up.
        Mann sued Steyn claiming that Steyn damaged his reputation

        Not quite right, Mann sued Steyn, National Review, CEI and Rand Simberg for defamation .
        Everyone but Steyn filed an Anti-SLAPP motion, which was denied, and they appealed, oral arguments took place but there is still no resolution of the appeal. That’s what is holding up the proceedings.

      • Seth says,
        ====================
        “It’s perfectly scientific to attack the work, try to reproduce it, to publish a different temperature reconstruction, and to suggest reasons why yours is the more accurate one where there are differences.
        The “skeptics” have done none of those things..
        =======================
        Seth is completely unaware of the many papers both before , (Mann ignored every one of them) and after Mann’s hockey paper which demonstrate a MWP as warm or warmer then our current period.

      • Seth is also unaware, or chooses to ignore, the many papers that have shredded both Mann’s data and the methods he used.

      • MarkW June 2, 2016 at 7:28 am
        “Seth is also unaware, or chooses to ignore, the many papers that have shredded both Mann’s data and the methods he used.”
        Please illuminate us with these “papers.” As far as I know Mann’s work has been replicated in peer reviewed studies many times. So If you have other peer reviewed papers that contradict his… let’s see them.

    • Seth says Mann is a hero of the day. The day today is June 1, not April 1. Hero? For filing a lawsuit? You choose your heros quite lightly, Saffron.

    • Seth – Democratic activist Michael Mann started the lawsuits. Stern frequently ridicules leftist activists, but he does not sue them…..unless they start it. Democratic activist Michael Mann is opposed to free speech by people who disagree with him. He tried to silence Steyn and others through this lawsuit. Steyn has financed his side of the case through engaging in free speech about Mann (he wrote a book, you should buy it and read it). In the book, many scientists are quoted about their takes on Mann’s work.
      Democrat Mann should not have started a fight to restrict the first amendment rights of people who make their living writing. Steyn is a well known defender of the first amendment and he is correctly fighting back. For a Democratic Party activist to want to violate other people’s free speech rights is despicable. And unfortunately common for members of the Democratic Party these days. It is a sad sight.

      • Leon0112 wrote: Democratic activist Michael Mann is opposed to free speech by people who disagree with him.
        I think you’ll find that he’s against defamation with malice.

      • The truth is not defamation.
        BTW, if Mann is so convinced that he was defamed, why is he dragging his feet on his own lawsuit?

    • “Mann is a hero of the day for putting up with this.”
      BWAHAHAHAHA! Good one, Seth!

    • Yes, anyone who sues someone else should never suffer the “harassment” of having the lawsuit come to court for judgement.
      Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

      • Analitik wrote Yes, anyone who sues someone else should never suffer the “harassment” of having the lawsuit come to court for judgement.
        Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. – Judge Frederick Weisberg
        Your understanding of the court case does not resemble the one that has been proceeding.

      • Some of defendants’ statements, however, contain what could reasonably be understood as assertions of fact. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. – Judge Frederick Weisberg
        That is the crux of the matter. In the modern world you can make a living by saying nasty things about your betters. It’s speaks poorly of your audience, but you legally can. If you defame them, with actual malice, they have legal recourse.

      • Seth, ‘If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. – Judge Frederick Weisberg’
        Bloody big word that “if”.

      • a statement does not need to be both false and malicious to be actionable.
        ===========
        depends. the court allows you to ridicule people in high places. otherwise those in high places could abuse their position with impunity.
        the problem comes when those in high place use the high cost of legal system itself, not the courts, to try and silence their critics.
        this is what this case is about. whether Mann is using the high cost of litigation as a means to silence his critics, rather than the judgement of the courts.

      • “saying nasty things about your betters”
        And there we have it. The standard leftist view regarding anyone who disagrees with them.
        All arrogance, no substance. Again.

      • I meant he who wrote “If a paper is wrong it won’t be reproducible. In the case of MBH 1999, it has been reproduced”.

    • Using the same bad data and the same bogus methods, they got the same fraudulent results.
      Surprise, surprise, surprise.
      Where’ s this well funded campaign against Mann? Is it the same funding that the rest of climate D#niers are being paid from?

    • Seth June 1, 2016 at 6:18 pm
      Mann is a hero of the day for putting up with this.
      No scientist should be harassed by a well funded campaign, including buying adwords against his name, to do defamation….

      WOW!
      Talk about twist and shout!
      Mann has brought suits against Dr. Tim Ball, Elmer (for the original “Hide the Decline”), Mark Steyn (who counter-sued to your ‘hero’s” chagrin). There may be others.
      Mann’s legal fees are being paid by a well funded group. (I forget the name off hand.)
      His legal targets are the real “heroes of the day”.
      Mann is the “legaphile” in all this.
      (He started out as an arborphile.)
      As far reproducing what Mann has done, I can show you an equation that results in 1=0. You can change a few of the numbers if you want and you’ll still get 1=0. Just keep repeating the sort-of-hidden error in the equation.

    • “Mann didn’t Fabricate, Mislead or Lie.”
      Mann used cherry picked and very limited data to create his now debunked Hockey Stick Chart. That is Fabrication.
      Mann truncated his Hockey Stick Chart to hide MWP and the Decline. That is Misleading.
      Mann said he received Nobel Peace Prize. That is a Lie.
      Man has been made very aware that his work has serious flaws, yet continues to proclaim his work as fact. That is goes beyond unscientific.

    • Seth,
      I am sorry, but MBH 98 (the hockey stick, recklessly published by Nature and the IPCC) was proven to be a crock. Neither MISTER Michael Mann (at the time of the paper’s acceptance),Dr. Bradley, or Dr. Hughes, was a statistician. They din’t invite a statistician to work on the project. But the entire project was based on statistical inferences.
      It’s pretty clear, in retrospect, that the authors inspected multiple data sources, and personally chose data that “looked good” and rejected data that “looked bad”, and then applied “statistically sound” methods to the data that they liked. At least as they thought. They were wrong.
      Later “confirming” papers are interesting. It is unheard of for scientifically incorrect papers to be confirmed by scientifically correct papers, i.e. methodologically wrong findings to be confirmed by methodologically sound findings. So our choice is to conclude, Bogus, unscientific work is replicated by scientific work-what a miracle– or there’s a group of unscientific quacks working in cahoots, as demonstrated in the UEA emails,.
      In California, is there a horrific drought, pre-El Nino. No, the drought wasn’t that bad. There is mismanagement of water supplies. The Sacramento River could be supplying water to the Central Valley to support farms that feed San Franciscans, Los Angelenos, and people across America. Those “selfish farmers” have to be punished for feeding the largest populaces of California, and the rest of America. But the farm product must be curtailed to protect the Delta Smelt. Is that really the objective? I don’t think so. A hatchery program would protect the smelt. The goal is to wreak starvation of humans.

    • If the little hockey stick Mann is such a good scientist why did he switch from using tree ring data to real data? That is highly unscientific. Also as his tree ring data came from such a small section of the globe it says nothing about the global situation.
      You need to accept that his hockey stick is a joke and has made him a laughing stock for good reason.

  12. RockyRoad June 1, 2016 at 9:42 pm says: “Mann’s “career” is so bad that what light is shed on it might be an improvement.”
    May we assume that the light will be powered by renewable, sustainable energy?

  13. I get the impression the problem with discovery is that there is nothing to discover. Also, Steyn can put climate science global warming itself on trial.

  14. Dare to dream, Mann and Hillary in striped pant suits, perpwalking into Leavenworth for federal crimes. Him worried about “hockey sticks” and her, worried that the horizontal stripes make her cankles look even bigger.

  15. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. – Judge Frederick Weisberg
    =============
    that is actually a very interesting statement by the judge as it would appear to open up Mann’s work itself for discovery, including the emails that Mann has worked so hard to keep from the public view.
    what better way to determine the truth about HOW the research was conducted than to examine the correspondence concerning the work. because the judge’s comments are not about whether the work itself is “true”, but rather how the work was conducted.
    was Mann a dispassionate observer when he conducted his scientific work, or did he have a bias? was he personally motivated for example to prove that the LIA and MWP for example did not exist, and thereby make the case that modern climate change must be man made?
    because it is well established that science requires that you be the dispassionate observer, otherwise it is highly likely that your internal bias will skew your findings, regardless of your intentions. Did
    for example: did Mann use double blind techniques to prevent bias, or did he for example cherry pick data using a “censored” folder to bias the work to meet his expectations? This need not be willful, as most problems in science are due to the sub-conscious bias that we all have, but are unware of.

    • that is actually a very interesting statement by the judge as it would appear to open up Mann’s work itself for discovery, including the emails that Mann has worked so hard to keep from the public view.

      As a (hopefully) humorous aside, this comment was made about 4 years ago under “Weather Cows”.
      “All this talk of cows and weather predictions got me curious about something. So, to satisfy my curiosity, I checked out some old emails on the UV server. Lo and behold, I discovered that the lesser known but very first “Hockey Stick” wasn’t based on tree rings at all! It seems a certain someone studied a series of preserved hoof prints. Not being a farm boy, he could only tell which direction they faced by noting the location of any assoiated cow pies. After discarding those that didn’t have a cow pie, he determined the direction of the remainder. Assuming any wind coming from the direction of Tennessee would be warmer (for some unknown reason), he plotted his proxies and the very first “Hockey Stick” was born! But … alas … someone saw his raw data and it was discovered that he wasn’t looking at cow prints and cow pies at all but rather bull prints and bull … scat. But he liked the “Hockey Stick”! Rather than admit what it was really based on, he looked for something else to plot that would produce the same results as the original bull-based plot. When he noticed the first rise of his stick seemed to correspond to Al Gore’s winning his first election, he turned to something wooden. This is how the second but better known “Hockey Stick” was born. And now you know the rest of the story!”

    • Warmer is good.
      Practical and economical energy is good.
      A byproduct of burning stuff, CO2, is breathed by that which is the foundation of Earth’s “food chain”; Plants.
      What’s not to like?

    • Ok Joe where did that Greenland Ice Core graph actually come from? It appears to be based on a graph from Schonwiess (1995) but omits the current temperatures which were on that graph. The paper by Dansgaard (1984) indicated on the graph has no data from Crete, Greenland so the origin of the graph is rather problematic. Any information on the origin of that graph would be welcome. The oldest data that I am aware of from that drilling site dates to 553AD, so this data would appear to be from another site?

      • It says at the bottom right Deansgaard 1984, Avery 2009. So I would assume the last author looked at it thru2009 We can argue and debate about the accuracy of any recreation of previous periods. Here is what I can tell you in looking at all the analogs and reanalyis in my 40 years of professional forecasting. Long term effects are not local. In other words you can occasionally have a year or two of one regime in one place without forcing changes elsewhere, but multi century warmth is not just going to occur in one place with out reactions elsewhere. Example in a simplified sense. I jumped all over the warm pool in the ne pac for the very cold winter we had for 13-14. Because in looking at past years and understanding the physical implications of very warm water there in winter ( 1917-1918 and 1993-1994 were big analogs) we knew there would be the reaction over the US. Arguments for instance that the MWP was “local” fail to address that warming in that area, if the earth was indeed not warmer overall, and the warming was local, would mean there would have to be evidence of cooling some other place. So where was it. To say that Greenland is problematic is saying that such warming was local, and over centuries it is highly unlikely that such “local” events would not cause a reaction that should be found else where. The more logical conclusion is it was part of a planetary warm period. I appreciate your question and understand the argument against my point. However this is why I am so insistent on really using temps since the late 1970s and going through the both warm and cold cycles of the PDO and AMO with the much better methods we have before we jump to conclusions. The further back we go ,the more we can raise arguments and so yours are certainly valid, but I think you can see where I am coming from. Peace out

  16. Could Mann’s attys submit the following?
    “Plaintiff Proffessor / Dr. Michael Mann moves for dismissal of his and for defendant Mark Steyn’s respective lawsuits. Dr. Mann’s filing was a joke, no harm intended, just a mile harassment. Mr. Steyn posted a joking comment on National Review, in order to needle Dr. Mann, and to spur on readers of his column who were climate deniers. Dr. Mann filed a joking lawsuit in order to needle Mr. Steyn and to spur on Professor/ Dr. Mann’s climate-warming worriers.
    “Neither contending party has been harmed by either party’s actions, as the following facts demonstrate:
    “Plaintiff Dr Mann has retained his Distinguished Professorship at the Pennsylvania State University. No federal grant-dispensing agency has rescinded the Plaintiff’s grants, nor precluded him from receiving future financial research aid. Dr. Mann has sold New York Times-ranked “best”selling” books, to his personal profit, and continued to publish his federally-funded research findings in respected journals.
    “Defendant Mr. Steyn has only lost a monthly column in National Review, a diminishing-readership publication, which provided little monthly remuneration to Mr. Steyn. Susequently, his personal “Steynonline.com” blog has attracted millions of new readers, tens of thousands of whom have purchased Mr. Steyn’s online for-sale offerings, ranging from coffee mugs and tee-shirts, to books, and even a music CD, all of which in combination have generated millions of dollars to Mr. Steyn’s bank account. For example, his CD ‘Feline Groovy’ has sold hundreds of thousands of copies, and has gained a 4.5 out of 5 stars Amazon reviews rating.
    “Plaintiff Professor / Dr. Mann believes that he is due a share of Defendant Mr. Steyn’s profits from books and the “Feline Groovy” CD that would not have ever been published in the Professor/Dr. Mann’s lawsuit, but that is not at issue in this instant matter. But the instant matter superior needs to be closed, by the Court’s refusing to be involved in either party’s claims.”

  17. It is now five years since Andrew Weaver and Michael Mann find their lawsuits against me nine days apart.
    I have heard nothing on the Weaver lawsuit even though it was filed first. It is possible it is dormant because Weaver is now an elected politician representing the Green Party in the BC Provincial Legislature.
    The Mann case is scheduled for Court in February 2017 so it will be almost seven years since filed. I responded to the charges by saying that what I said was the truth because that allowed discovery; many important documents were requested.

  18. Quote * obviously Mann was never all that outraged to begin with.*
    It was never about the hockey stick Mann being offended but was all about trying to silence the opposition.
    There have been too many on the CAGW side trying to use the courts in this way.
    Tim Ball I thought Steyn’s case was bad enough but seven years is absolutely ridiculous and a disgrace to so called justice.
    Have you got links to best describe your cases because I am certainly not going to desmogblog to try and gain an insight. Thank you.

  19. With Mann’s lawsuits a threat to scientific debate and inquiry, there should be some scientific reporting organizations, universities and science “unions” filing with Steyn. Then again, most of those went out on a limb and away from science for the recognition and money and would have to saw that limb off to stand up for science now.’

Comments are closed.