Via the Volokh Conspiracy: Jacobson Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Against Other Scientists
After an initial hearing, Stanford’s Mark Jacobson thinks better of pursuing a scientific disagreement in court.
Jonathan H. Adler
Last fall, Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson sued several researchers and the National Academy of Sciences over the publication of a paper critical of his work. According to Jacobson, the NAS decision to publish a peer-reviewed critique of one of his co-authored papers in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences“ was defamatory because the critique made what Jacobson asserted were false and misleading claims about his work in the process of dismissing his claim that 100 percent of the United States’ electricity needs may be met by renewable energy sources. (Additional background on the suit may be found here.)
Now it seems Jacobson has thought better about taking this dispute to court. Earlier this week, there was a court hearing on whether to dismiss the case. Here is one account of the proceedings (the only one I could find). [Note: Here’s a second account from EnergyWire (subscription required).]
Jacobson apparently had second thoughts after the hearing. Yesterday Jacobson voluntarily dismissed his suit.
Why did Jacobson change his mind? Here is the answer he provides in an FAQ document Jacobson posted on his website yesterday:
Q. Why did you dismiss the lawsuit on February 22, 2018?
A. It became clear, just like in the Mann case, which has been going on for 6 years, that it is possible there could be no end to this case for years, and both the time and cost would be enormous. Even if the motions for dismissal were defeated, the other side would appeal, and that alone would take 6-12 months if not more. Even if I won the appeal, that would be only the beginning. It would mean time-consuming discovery and depositions, followed by a trial. The result of the trial would likely be appealed, etc., etc.
Full story here: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/23/jacobson-dismisses-defamation-lawsuit-ag
The irony here is, Mann, the plaintiff, is the one who’s been dragging his feet. He doesn’t want to go to court, because he knows he will lose, and lose big, as I suspect Jacobsen finally realized. Mann’s lawsuit has always been about “the process is the punishment”, not winning.
In the meantime, Mark Steyn got his own punishment in in the form of this scathing and highly entertaining book, with illustrations by Josh. Highly recommended if you don’t have it already.
Available on Amazon here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great book curated by Steyn.
As far as I am aware, Einstein had better things to do than sue the 100 German Physicists who disagreed with him.
😎
These lawsuits aren’t about science.
They are about pride and politics. Mostly politics. “Pride” is just Mann’s button they pushed to get him to sue in the first place.
He’s cannon fodder.
When his political usefulness is gone, so will his “green”.
Einstein was a man of common sense, intelligence and wit. With Mann, I am not so sure.
Nick:
Your support of a charlatan the likes of Michael Mann strips you of any and all credibility that you might have in matters of the climate. Hell, you probably still think MM won the Nobel Peace Prize…
As often, I am just trying to get the simple facts right. When you have the facts, then you can decide what you think of him.
You may be right. It is not what I understood to be the situation, but I’ll try to find time to look at it carefully.
People need to stop with the mindless abuse. Nick’s account is plausible, in that certainly one defendant cannot split off from the others and make it into a standalone case.
It also makes sense in that Steyn’s countersuit would depend on the original motion being heard, whether Steyn participates in that or not.
It would be nice if someone with a legal background could comment further, but I suspect I had got the wrong impression and that Nick may be right.
In general, you do not try to get the simple facts right. You nitpick, such that you are then able to internally further your rationalizations.
Physically, look in the mirror, and see if you can tell yourself it ain’t so.
‘As often, I am just trying to get the simple facts right. When you have the facts, then you can decide what you think of him.’
I’m sure Nick is doing the same thing over at all the alarmist sites – ‘getting the simple facts straight.’
Nick bangs the facts, no question, or the table, whichever is sturdier.
====================
“Thursday morning the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that Michael Mann’s defamation suit against Rand Simberg, Mark Steyn, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute over blog posts written by Simberg and Steyn may proceed.”
This, from Washington Post, supports Nick’s account.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/22/making-defamation-law-great-again-michael-manns-suit-may-continue/?utm_term=.d170fde1b501
The WaPoo is not an unbiased source. Quite the opposite.
“The WaPoo is not an unbiased source”
The law prof, Jonathan Adler, who wrote that article, did feel it necessary to disclose an interest. He is a contributing editor at National Review Online, one of the defendants, and has worked for CEI, another defendant. He has however given a straightforward and legally informed account of the state of play.
Yes, I think Nick was correct. The ruling was that the suit against all four defendants, including Steyn, may go ahead. Steyn has withdrawn from the application made by the other three. He has also got a countersuit that is held in abeyance pending resolution of the application made by the other three.
At this point it is up to anyone thinking differently to produce a case number and documentation of any separate case in which Steyn is being sued by Mann as a separate suit from the original 2012 suit against all four.
I had not recalled correctly, probably had not understood at the time, that what Steyn withdrew from was the application the other three made. But this did not make Mann’s case into a separate and new action. The only case Mann is bringing seems to be the original one against the original four defendants.
It is completely mad that it is taking this long to get to trial.
Here is a more recent update on the Mann cases by the same author that Nick keeps citing ad nauseum. It notes quite definitively that Steyn has gone his own way in the litigation. I doubt that Nick will cease conflating the two cases.
https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/11/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defam
“It notes quite definitively that Steyn has gone his own way in the litigation”
He’s referring to the outcome (for now) of the appeal, which Steyn did not join. That does not create a separate case. As I challenged a while ago, you could produce something substantive about this supposed separate case. A case number, a complaint – any doc at all that talks of Steyn vs Mann. The judge certainly doesn’t think there is such a case; as I quoted here:
“The court is unwilling to sever Mr. Steyn’s case from the other Defendants to accommodate his desire to go it alone”
Your update is simply a reprint of the one I discussed here.
I found the coverage of this topic at Retraction Watch very useful. This for example:
“RW: There are lots of people who think that science and the court system should stay as separate as possible and that any attempt bring science into the courts is wrong. What would you say to them?”
“MJ: A scientific issue is whether or not it’s possible to build as many hydropower turbines as we proposed. I agree that’s not something that should be resolved by any court. Any fool can see that’s not what we’re doing. We’re not asking to rule whether Clack said something mean about the possibility that we can add a lot of hydropower turbines. The issue in the case was, what was our assumption? Clack knew what our assumption was, and then lied about it.
That is subject to the court if it results in defamation. It did, he damaged my reputation. I do computer modeling, that’s my profession. He says I made modeling errors when I don’t.”
I liked that last bit about the infallibility of computer modellers.
Possibly, in the current political climate, he figured he might not get the preferential treatment that would have been afforded to him under Obama.
There’s a hard rein gonna fall.
===================
Good lord, we cant have “time consuming discovery now, can we”