Alito pens fiery dissent after court declines to hear dispute between climate professor, National Review

From Fox News

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a fiery defense of free speech Monday morning as the high court announced it would not hear an appeal from the conservative magazine National Review in a defamation case against it by liberal climate science professor Michael Mann.

National Review published an op-ed that called his graph — which displays earth’s temperature increasing seemingly exponentially beginning right around the industrial revolution — “deceptive” and “fraudulent” over its substitution of certain types of data for thermometer readings for time periods before thermometers were available. The magazine called for an investigation into Mann and doubled down on its stance in subsequent writings.

Monday’s decision means Mann can continue his defamation suit against National Review, which argued that its articles criticizing his methodology were protected speech.

“If the speech in all these cases had been held to be unprotected, our Nation’s system of self-government would not have been seriously threatened,” Alito wrote after naming several recent cases in which the Supreme Court upheld controversial speech, including the trade name “F-U-C-T” for a clothing company. “But … the protection of even speech as trivial as a naughty trademark for jeans can serve an important purpose: It can demonstrate that this Court is deadly serious about protecting freedom of speech.”

HARVARD-YALE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTEST AT FOOTBALL GAME SEES 42 CHARGED, OFFICIALS SAY

The petition the court denied was on a procedural issue in a lower court — whether a jury could decide if a claim is “provably false” — and National Review will have the chance to appeal the ruling if lower courts rule against it. In fact, the Supreme Court’s denial of National Review’s petition is just one more step in a case that’s been in the courts since 2012. But Alito said protecting the First Amendment meant the Supreme Court should take up the case that it would normally let play out at lower levels before stepping in.

“[R]equiring a free speech claimant to undergo a trial after a ruling that may be constitutionally flawed is no small burden,” he wrote. “A journalist who prevails after trial in a defamation case will still have been required to shoulder all the burdens of difficult litigation and may be faced with hefty attorney’s fees. Those prospects may deter the uninhibited expression of views that would contribute to a healthy public debate.”

It its petition to the high court, National Review argued its criticisms of the graph’s “cherry-picking of data and apples-to-oranges comparisons,” were valid, adding that since it was at the center of a larger controversy about climate change the op-ed fell squarely within protected speech and National Review could not be sued for defamation.

Mann, on the other hand, leaned on the argument that he — and his graph — had survived significant scrutiny following the leaked emails that led to the “Climategate” scandal.

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1198989265683779585

Full story here.

HT/Phil

151 thoughts on “Alito pens fiery dissent after court declines to hear dispute between climate professor, National Review

    • Actually this is a good result for AGW skeptics, but I agree not so good for free speech in general.

      If you want to know why, I would suggest reading Mark Steyn (one of the co-defendants in the case who is also counter-suing and champing at the bit to get to court and destroy Mann).

      https://www.steynonline.com/9874/apocalypse-deferred

      This is just an update link, there is much more detail on his site. The summary of it is, Steyn is a fighter and has a very, very good case. My prediction is that Mann will eventually bail on his lawsuit before it goes to trial. Which is why Steyn has counter-sued to ensure that it does go to trial.

      I would say it is time to get the popcorn going; however, given how long the case has already been delayed you might get pretty fat before the show starts.

      • Meanwhile, every eco-fraud .org with $B’s backing them will pay Mann’s legal bills as he wages Lawfare blitzkrieg against CAGW skeptics. If the high court considers that “Freedom of Speech” … then $$$$$ rules supreme … and some speech will become more equal than others … regardless of truth or proof.

        • Money is already supreme in our 3 tiered justice system. If you’re an average Joe, you’re guilty until proven innocent. If you have money, you can be innocent until proven guilty. If you are part of, what passes for, the ‘nobility’ in the USA, you can get away with almost anything.

          • As demonstrated by countless stories of (predominantly black) young men setting in jail for months or years waiting for their trial, only to have it thrown out. And countless examples of oil barons (substitute: banking, tech, film directors, whatever) paying their bail and fleeing the country. And recent examples of politicians breaking the law and FBI directors deciding that if you’re a politician you’d have to have also intended to break the law – even though that’s neither part of the statute nor a principle the FBI applies to anyone else.

          • SMC – Point of order.
            First, using Wikipedia as a source immediately disqualifies the response as being well reasoned. Using the NYTimes and WaPo isn’t much better.
            Second, you respond to a “countless examples” challenge with a list of those that have been arrested, tried, convicted, incarcerated, then exonerated. None of your examples speak to the point of the challenge.
            Third, you’re obviously responding to something completely different. Namely the statement that “young men setting in jail for months or years waiting for their trial, only to have it thrown out.” Again, your examples are all of people that have been arrested, tried, convicted, incarcerated, then exonerated. None speak to being held for months or years in an American jail awaiting trial with charges subsequently being dismissed.

          • Also completely steps over this bit of hyperbole “And countless examples of oil barons (substitute: banking, tech, film directors, whatever) paying their bail and fleeing the country. “

          • TomB, Noted. Quibbling. Also, My original point was, ” If you’re an average Joe, you’re guilty until proven innocent.”

          • @SMC – Point of Order – In neither of the “examples” you provide was there any mention, whatsoever, of “months or years” of incarceration in an American jail prior to their trial.

            Appears to me you have continued to fail to understand or substantively reply to the point in question.

            It is not my job to do your research for you. I have no interest, whatsoever, in your SJW crusade. Rather, it is yours to understand what is being discussed and contribute in something vaguely resembling a reasonable response.

            Also, you make a faulty presumption. That I am white, privileged, and wealthy. As an “average Joe”, I have been arrested. Not something I would brag about. But there is, in fact, a difference in outcome. Being non-combative law enforcement and participating in some meaningful fashion in your defense – even with Court appointed attorneys – can dramatically alter the outcome of your case.

          • SMC, you are practicing reading comprehension fail. The challenge was the name a couple of the “countless example”. Let’s look at what was claimed there were “countless examples” of:

            And countless examples of oil barons (substitute: banking, tech, film directors, whatever) paying their bail and fleeing the country

            None of your examples fit the above. You have failed the challenge.

      • How so? Seems to me if Mann wins against National Review, he can stop any one of us from opposing him. It’s their free speech that’s being abrogated

      • It is not a good result for anyone that Mark Steyn has had to spend millions and be distracted from his copious output of obituaries and show reviews and mass immigration dangers among other valuable content on account of this baseless litigation allowed to continue by incompetent (and probably more) judges, other than revealing National Review’s feckless ways and Steyn got to make that awesome speech at that Heartland conference. Though I do see the potential backfire for Mann and his ilk if only it were to be honestly reported by establishment media.

      • re: Rocketscientist November 27, 2019 at 7:46 am
        About the only decision I felt was honorable was when President Obama did not appoint the next justice to the US Supreme Court

        ———————————-

        Errors, misconceptions, flawed recollection?

        (1) Members of the SC are __nominated__ (rather than appointed) by the president and __require__ Senate approval; https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-the-supreme-court-nomination-process-3368219

        (2) Merrick Garland __was__ nominated by Obama and the Senate did not move on this nomination. On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Antonin Scalia.

        • appointed definition: 1. officially chosen for a job or responsibility

          so the word appointed, by definition, isn’t a “wrong” word choice, per se even if, pedantically, it’s not the most precise word choice.

          1) To be fair, people generally do refer (colloquially) to the members of the Supreme court as being appointed by the various presidents who nominated them IE “President George W. Bush appointed Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006”. (don’t take my word for it, do a web search on “appointed by”) The difference being that those nomination actually passed the Senate (so not only where they chosen for the job, but they actually got seated as well).

          2) Merrick Garland was indeed nominated by Obama, but never passed the Senate. So, he’s generally not referred to as being appointed, as he never made it to the court.

          so bottom line, is it fair for the poster to say “President Obama did not appoint the next justice to the US Supreme Court”? well it depends on what the poster meant in using that word. By the strict definition of appointed, no since Obama did “officially chose for the job” Merrick Garland (by nominating him). However, in the more colloquial sense of someone that was chosen for *and* got on to the court, then yes, as Garland, while chosen, never got onto the court. In that case Obama nominated but did not get the appointment of Garland that he desired.

  1. Free speech is fine, but Mann’s work has been reproduced so many times since, it really is a stretch to say it is fraudulent. Gonna be very interesting from here.

    • So, why wasn’t he willing to present himself in court in British Columbia? He’s convicted by his silence (officially in court). Tweets don’t count.

      He didn’t appeal. Surely his lawyer would have warned him about adverse inference. He’s implicitly admitted that he’s a fraud.

      • “So, why wasn’t he willing to present himself in court in British Columbia? He’s convicted by his silence (officially in court). Tweets don’t count.”
        There’s a certain president in the hot seat at the moment who might not agree with that. But actually I think Mann should have to present his data to prove his point, just like I think Trump, Pompeo and Mulvaney should have to front to the American people to explain why the evidence against them is wrong. Gonna be interesting

      • It obviously does, if it is consensus fraud, it then becomes settled fraud, sorry I mean settled science…:)

      • Do you memba when lefties pretended to revile the Koch bros. and then trotted our that validating study of no hanky panky with one-way as suits temp adjustments by what they said was some Koch foundation? I memba. That’s how they do reproducing.

    • Simon

      It doesn’t matter how many other researchers in Mann’s rolodex get the same answer he got (by using the same dodgy pseudoproxies he used)—that’s never going to clear his graph of the suspicion of fraudulence.

      Pseudoscience + correct answer = pseudoscience.

      Of course, it’s always possible the jury won’t understand this any better than you do so I can’t disagree with you that the ancient Chinese wish/curse has come true.

        • Correct, Alan. I don’t *need* to assume fraudulence.

          But on the other hand, Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg or anyone else on the planet is *entitled* to do so if they like, since Michael Mann refused to show his working (in violation of the scientific method).

          In fact the methodological opacity of MBH98 might be argued to constitute fraud in and of itself, regardless of what (if anything) was being hidden.

          Mystery-meat science is not science at all, yet Mann passed his paper off as such, and allowed the IPCC to do so as well, for many, many years.

        • Alan D.: For some of us, fraud is not assumed, it’s evident. So, “no need to assume” is correct, but it’s not mere incompetence when you decide that some data inputs are more equal than others, Animal-Farm style. The idea that you can select “non-conforming” data, hide it, and not explain why it’s not used, takes it past the “mere incompetence” zone.

        • “Hide the decline,” and, “Mike’s Nature trick,” is undeniable proof that they knew their tree proxies were not tracking instrument data, and wanted to conceal that fact from others.

          I’m pretty sure that could be interpreted as deceptive and fraudulent.

          • Jtom
            ““Hide the decline,” and, “Mike’s Nature trick,” is undeniable proof that they knew their tree proxies were not tracking instrument data, and wanted to conceal that fact from others.”
            The only thing your comment is proof of, is that you have no idea what they meant by those phrases. Do yourself a favor, google them, understand and then comment.

          • I suspect that the “censored” folder on Mann’s web-site is much more damning – this shows quite clearly that the result is not robust and relies on cherry picks.
            It is arguable that post-hoc selection was done (weigh things that “look right” more than ones that don’t, or just exclude stuff that goes against your theory), which is also a form of cherry pick.
            It’s also arguable that Mann is a “public figure” – he has had several op-eds in various newspapers.
            That’ll do for now…

    • Reproduction of results in science does not entail using the same flawed and deceptive methods as the primary investigator. Taking in tree ring data from very many trees, ice core data, even historical anecdotes will show that we are living in a cold snap, much colder than the Minoan and Roman periods, or even colder than the Medieval warm period when it was possible to farm in Iceland and Greenland, and agriculture was possible much further north in Europe and China than during the current relatively pathetic and anemic 1-1.5°C warming above pre-industrial Little Age temps. In fact we’re still in an Ice Age, and will be until most of the ice disappers like in other interglacial periods.

      • They can farm on Iceland now but it was probably to a greater extent during the Medieval Warm Period. The volcanic nature of the terrain makes it a limited activity.

    • So, Simon, the number of repetitions is the proof that Mann, despite a mountain of actual fact evidence, isn’t a fraud?

      Just think about that for a minute.

      Dr. Goebbels would be proud of you, because every malevolent autocrat in history has used the same tactic.

      Prevent criticism and stick to repeating the Party Line

    • Simon I am a simple person.
      Do I understand you to say that the hockey stick is valid science?
      Please elaborate.

      • “Do I understand you to say that the hockey stick is valid science” Isn’t that what this is all about? The hockey stick may have used methods not considered accurate today. But the question is was Mann being fraudulent at the time? There is little doubt now that the uptick in the late 20th century was no slight of hand by a lone scientist. It is very real. Which is kind of an irony that skeptics still site it (the hockey stick) as some sort of proof all climate science is false and fanciful. Gonna be interesting this case.

        • “But the question is was Mann being fraudulent at the time?”

          Yes. He didn’t disclose his methods. SEVEN YEARS after publishing his paper, he was still saying “Giving [McIntyre and McKitrick] the algorithm [I used] would be giving in to the intimidation tactics these people are engaged in.”

          So his paper was a methodological black box, and therefore not science at all but a glorified opinion piece, grey literature, belonging in Pachauri’s metaphorical dustbin. Yet Mann was complicit in the climate industry’s misrepresentation of MBH98/99 as scientific studies. To his substantial personal enrichment, I might add.

          That’s fraud right there—and it doesn’t even matter what temperature the Earth was during the Middle Ages. It doesn’t matter if the Hockey Stick was “right” or “wrong.” I just proved Mann’s work was fraudulent either way.

        • Simon: The more comments you make, the less interesting it gets.
          “The hockey stick may have used methods not considered accurate today….” Mann’s method was not considered accurate ever since the invention of numbers. But 2 comments back, you said he was reproduced “so many times….” so which is it, accurate and reproduced or not considered accurate?

          On a serious note, I am ashamed of Kavanaugh, Roberts, Thomas and Gorsuch. Alito laid it out for them- Political speech is more important, and more in need of protection, than strip clubs. Yet the Court has no trouble protecting strippers. The case is far more important than the “provably false” issue, which was the very misdirection Mann’s lawyers hoped to get the Courts chasing after like a tail. Mark Steyn understands the First Amendment better than four so-called conservative jurists. (I don’t mention the four libs, they get Freedom of the Press, too, when somebody sues NYT.)

        • Simon, yes, the uptick in the late 20th century is no sleight of hand, it is very real. What is a sleight of hand is the pretension that it had never happened in the past. Because you only see the uptick using a source of data (thermometers) that were not available in the past. If you go to the tree rings used in the past to draw the rest of the graphic, there is no uptick. If there is no uptick in them in the present, then the past could have perfectly had the same temperature upticks as the present that tree rings just didn’t catch.

      • “The hockey stick was dumped by the IPCC years ago.”
        Because it has been superseded… by data that paints a more accurate picture… but still pretty much the same picture.

        • The hockey stick was dumped by the IPCC because it was junk science.

          /sarc on/ The IPCC no longer wanted to be associated with something that would diminish its credibility. /sarc off/

          “Because it has been superseded… by data that paints a more accurate picture… but still pretty much the same picture.”

          Except you seemed to have mislaid that data. Hmmm? Were these magic data? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

          If Simon is your second name I can guess what your first is. And it ain’t Paul.

          • leitmotif
            If I had a dollar for every time someone here thought they were being clever doing the “Simple Simon” joke I’d have $15 dollars.
            And the data of late is all there for you to look.

          • Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

            I’d say no, because, as you will recall, those magic beanstalk beans actually worked (either that or they were really magic mushrooms because Jack had one heck of a trip).

          • If I had a dollar for every time someone here thought they were being clever doing the “Simple Simon” joke I’d have $15 dollars.

            well, since you’ve just shown that you have an inability to do simple math, I’d say the “simple Simon” joke is well earned. Of course you probably thought you were being clever with the “if I had a dollar” comment. clearly clever isn’t anywhere near your wheel house.

        • And yet you cannot produce that data. How much time do you need?

          Put up or shut up.

          “If I had a dollar for every time someone here thought they were being clever doing the “Simple Simon” joke I’d have $15 dollars.”

          Or maybe you would have $15,000 dollars if you could count?

          • leitmotif
            There is more data than yo could get through in a lifetime. You just need to be able and or want to read.

      • I’m fairness, even if the IPCC believed it to still be accurate they might have decided that it’s not worth the perception of using junk science, since the perception will reduce the number of people who believe their other claims.

    • Even accepting that based on what we know now it’s not fraudulent, that’s not the question.

      What matters is whether there was reason to believe it was fraudulent at the time. And that’s pretty clearly a yes.

    • Acolytes using the same data and same methods come up with the same result.

      Only in climate science could this be counted as confirmation.

    • Mann was the lead author of MHB98, which included the “hockey stick” graph.

      https://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/mann_etal_1998.pdf

      In a suit against Ball, Mann continually refused to produce his verificaiotion statistics for MHB98. As a result, the British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ball.

      https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm

      In 2006, Wahl and Amman did a study to verify the MHB 98 paper, and they DID provide the verification statistics.

      https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

      Note table 1S – r² is a measly 0.018 for 1400 to 1449, and 0.010 for 1450 to 1499, the earliest times in the verification period. NO WONDER Mann refused to release his verification statistics. With such a tiny r² , likely due to chance, it’s no surprise that PROXY temperatures showed a DECLINE after 1960, despite a slight increase in REAL temperatures. Obviously Mann’s proxies were worthless. If Mann’s statistical analysis had not been worthless, there would not have been a decline in PROXY temperatures to hide.

      Mann used non centered Principal Components in his mhb98 paper. Here’s what Ian Joliffe, a PhD in Statistics, and author of “Principal Component Analysis” said about the paper: “… I had not understood what MBH had done until a few months ago. Furthermore, the talk is distinctly cool about anything other than the usual column-centred version of PCA. It gives situations where uncentred or doubly-centred versions might conceivably be of use, but especially for uncentred analyses, these are fairly restricted special cases. It is said that for all these different centrings ‘it’s less clear what we are optimising and how to interpret the results’.

      I can’t claim to have read more than a tiny fraction of the vast amount written on the controversy surrounding decentred PCA (life is too short), but from what I’ve seen, this quote is entirely appropriate for that technique. There are an awful lot of red herrings, and a fair amount of bluster, out there in the discussion I’ve seen, but my main concern is that I don’t know how to interpret the results when such a strange centring is used? Does anyone? What are you optimising? A peculiar mixture of means and variances? An argument I’ve seen is that the standard PCA and decentred PCA are simply different ways of describing/decomposing the data, so decentring is OK. But equally, if both are OK, why be perverse and choose the technique whose results are hard to interpret? Of course, given that the data appear to be non-stationary, it’s arguable whether you should be using any type of PCA.

      I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics…”- Ian Joliffe

      • Mann also GROSSLY overweighted the bristlecone pine time series,so that none of the other proxies really came into play. That is outright fraud.

    • Mann’s fraud was splicing the instrument record onto the end of his proxy reconstruction when the proxy turned to cooling after 1960.

      • James A

        I disagree. The fraud was deleting data that caused the real temperature profile to be evident.

        Second, there were two procedural errors in the calculation steps which appear to have been made deliberately and which the reviewers ignored.

        There is more. The IPCC accepted the paper before it was published indicating fraudulent intent on their behalf – i.e. that the paper was a bespoke piece of work supportive of an otherwise unjustifiable agenda. The journal that said they would publish it shortly after the deadline, the cutoff date, rejected it (kudos to them) and it appeared only later in a junkier journal with low standards and incompetent reviewers.

    • “Reproduced” so many times – Alarmist talking point

      A) The blade is a function of higher resolution data (thermometers)
      B) The shaft is a function of low resolution data (proxies) with lots of ex post selection also known as cherrypicking, weighting issues, etc. The Reproductions of the HS continue with similar errors.

      The reality is the HS’s Mann, MHB 98, 99 pages 2k marcott, etc. provide little if any insight into the historical temp reconstructions.

    • Reproduced?

      Mann’s hockey stick has not been “reproduced many times” it has been reproduced twice, once by Mann (2008 – errors exposed within 10 days) and once by one of his students. It was reproduced by duplicating the errors inherent in the first iteration and in both subsequent cases the “blade” was no longer straight.

      It is also significant that one of the original co-authors has thrown Mann under the bus of progress.

      As McIntyre and McKitrick showed (2003), if the principle component analysis is done properly by centering the whole data set instead of (incorrectly) centering it on the 20th century, the Medieval Warm Period reappears.

      The data removed from the available material shows in all likelihood the two serious errors in the original paper were made deliberately. If so, the work is fraudulent. If not its authors were incompetent. Pick one.

  2. Mann lost his suit against Tim Ball. He was unwilling to present himself in court and to testify under oath. We can infer from his silence (under oath) that he knows he would be officially exposed as a fraud.

    I thought President Trump had stacked the Supreme Court. What went wrong?

    • The SC is currently split between 4 more conservative Justices and 4 more liberal Justices. Roberts is currently the swing vote that determines most outcomes. Ginsberg will have to hang on until 2024 if Trump is re-elected. Otherwise Trump will replace her with a more conservative Justice that will swing the Court to a 5 Justice conservative majority.

  3. For the benefit of those of us who are blocked by @MichaelEMann, could someone please copy and paste the contents of the linked tweet? It just seems tragic that the words of one of the greatest scientific thinkers of our age should be lost in the ether.

  4. No wonder Mann has mathematical problems. Like Mickey Mouse, he only has three fingers (according to Josh).

  5. Their rulings over the years have made it quite clear that the SCOTUS will more often than not adjudicate in a manner which keeps other lawyers and judges busy for years to come on a given issue.

    • I’ve been saying for years that the primary purpose of the legal system is to keep as many lawyers as possible employed.

  6. Let’s have a trial, already! Justice delayed is justice denied. Wait a minute, I’m not sure you can find enough jurors who can understand “Mikes Nature Trick” even if it is carefully explained to them by actual scientists. Meanwhile the squirrels in Central Park are about to freeze their nuts…Happy Thanksgiving!

    • All they need is Ross McKitrick as an expert witness. If I can understand it, someone who went to law school surely must be able to.

  7. So it turns out “free speech” isn’t free at all. Anyone who offends the establishment will have to pay lots and lots of $$$$$$$, irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case.
    Welcome to The Pleasuredome!

    • Nothing in life is free.
      I heard they had a war in the US to provide freedom to all. Someone paid a price for that.

      Besides that, those words you’re familiar with are simply to keep you “believing” in your freedom, all the while they whittle away at your freedom.

  8. Excellent speech from AG Barr to the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention where he describes how “the resistance” has damaged the Republic and has veered far from the intent of the founders and how congress over time has avoided legislating and how dangerous it is to leave it up to the courts too fill in the blanks left by the legislature. Plus several other issues that have resulted in our straying from the Constitutional path the founders laid out for us. It really is an excellent presentation from an exceptionally knowledgeable Constitutional Constructionist. However it’s an hour long. And in case anyone wants to ask. Yes, I watched every minute of it. If you have the time it’s worth it. I suspect anyone that watches this video, even in this forum, will come away better informed.
    https://youtu.be/MeMwdtbPR6g

  9. The Supreme Court does not need to get involved now and short circuit the litigation. The NR appeal to SCOTUS was more about publicity stunting, not even qualified as a hail mary pass. It is more akin to attempting a hail mary pass from your own 10 yard line with a full quarter to go and the score is tied.

    Ultimately, it the litigants keep pouring money in to this waste of time, a jury trial will ensue, a verdict will be issued, and then the appeals process, which can take many more years to resolve, will go forward.

    In litigation only the lawyers win.

    • re: Duane November 27, 2019 at 4:25 am
      The Supreme Court does not need to get involved now and short circuit the litigation. The NR appeal to SCOTUS was more about publicity stunting, not even qualified as a hail mary pass. It is more akin to attempting a hail mary pass from your own 10 yard line with a full quarter to go and the score is tied.

      ——-

      This ^^^^^^^^.

      NO ONE else __to this point__ EVEN came close.

    • Hardly a surprise: The right to free speech v. the right to redress. If handed to a group of lawyers, for which would they vote?

    • FWIW –

      In my opinion, it was premature to file cert petition with the SC. The motion for en banc hearing is still not heard (ie voted on by the entire DC panel.

      The cert petition was as best a move to get the DC panel to move the case off the back burner. The DC court of appeals, knows they 3 judge panel screwed up and at best are looking for a way craft a ruling.

      The good thing is Alito’s dissent from denial, gives the DC panel a roadmap to correct the 3judge panel ruling if they agree to hear the case en banc. Further, Alito’s dissent for denial, gives the panel a saving face way of correcting the 3 judge panel’s prior ruling.

  10. What’s the issue? Free speech? Hmmmm…. “1984” was written long before that year. Ditto “Fahrenheit 451” and a whole bunch of movies from the 1950s like “THEM!” and “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea”. Does that make them wrong? Not a bit. They were fiction.

    Mann is allowed to have his opinion, even if he is a money-grubbing putz. You don’t have to agree with what he says. Most of this climate twaddle is baloney created with the sole intent of getting money out of governments and nothing else. If Mann is wrong – not just wrong, but dead wrong – won’t that be proven in the future when his predictions are shown to be based on false premises?

    There have been many, many projections about the future, none of which came true. That’s been shown here repeatedly on WUWT. Even meteorologists with enormous tech stuff at their disposal are frequently wrong. Does that make them awful people? No, just incorrect, and they are a lot more accurate now than they were 40 and 50 years ago.

    You can’t stop someone from publishing twaddle. That stuff is all over the place. If my stories set in 325 years from now say we’re in a long-term glacial maximum and that’s the reason people are leaving Earth, does that make me a bad person? No. It just means that I like telling good stories, and I should not be required to add a warning that “This is a work of fiction” to keep the morons who slavishly follow the global warming stuff like ants looking for a bowl of sugar from suing me. But that is almost the requirement now, which is a shame.

    Did anyone at all ever predict the dependence people have now on electronic junk, or that wireless phones that also take photos would ever replace land lines? And has anyone thought for even one tiny second what the world right now would be like if every cotton-pickin’ part of electronics communications stopped. By everything, I mean everything from the internet and so-called “dark web”, phones, computers, instant this-and-that. And it goes on for a week? Geezo Pete, people would have to actually talk to each other!!! The horror! Send letters by mail, communicate by telegraph and land lines, and even then, if those last two were removed, the entire world would/will be back in the 1700s. Most of what we take for granted right now is the byproduct of the 19th century’s Industrial Revolution, which was the by-blow of thing like the invention of the steam-driven engine. Or if you want to go back earlier, the invention of movable type – a whole lot earlier- and before that, the printing press putting information into the hands of the common man.

    Mann’s forecasts are projections, nothing else. In order to prove him wrong, someone has to track the real world results constantly, all the way to the end of his projections, and make it clear that not only was he wrong, he was dead wrong. It really is that simple. I’d really rather see him proven completely wrong and become someone’s joke than anything else. His projection is to 2030? That’s eleven (11) years ahead. Prove that he is/was wrong.

    • Sara, good observations there !

      Thing is, I read from Wonkypedia that the Mann is 53 years old, so I’d have to guess that he like so many others involved on the CC scare, only have to keep the wheels from coming off for another 20 or so years in order to be completely immune from the impact of being proved to be wrong or right ?

      Whilst as you say, wrong theories will Always be shown in the long run to have been wrong, the damage that can be wrought from the acceptance of false paradigm’s that take decades to be seen as palpably false is potentially immense.

      As ever, robust debate is our only defence, which is probably why the post modern crowd hate it 🙂

      • Absolutely, Fnakapan! And the best defense against false projections IS hard and tangible results.

        I am looking forward to the day when I (and the rest of you) can point at Mann and his prognostications and fall down laughing over it.

    • Sara,
      Mann’s projections are not the issue. The issue is Mann’s reconstruction of past climate by devious and suspect methods. Mann’s real sin is the damage to the reputation of science and scientists. There have been many other science charlatans throughout history but Mann’s work had become seminal in the use of alleged climate change to radically alter our economic and social systems. Rather than be chastened by M & M, Mann chose to double down on what has become a crusade and now here we are.

      • Oh, you get no argument from me on the damage he has done. None at all. What he has done, with all his gloryhounding and grandstanding, will make him look like what he is, down the road. It has already happened and will continue to erode his status long after he’s gone.

        One can only hope that in the future, “pulling a Mikey Mann” will be a pejorative for people like him.

    • Sara
      You said, “…, they are a lot more accurate now than they were 40 and 50 years ago.” That is not my perception. I suspect that accuracy varies with the location on Earth, and even the type of weather.
      In California, with a two-season climate, forecasts have always been good because it rarely rains in the Summer and almost always rains when the skies are overcast in the Winter. In the SF Bay area, one gets about a week of warm to hot sunny Summer days, and then like clockwork, a marine cloud layer comes in and cools things off. Turbulent air masses moving over New England are chaotically diverted by the mountainous terrain. Although, it was my experience that is rained briefly almost afternoon in the Summer in Vermont. False positives appear to be more abundant than false negatives here in the Midwest. That is, the prediction of rain that fails to materialize is more frequent than rain unexpectedly showing up on a sunny day.

      Temperatures are predictable with good accuracy based on just statistical history. The addition of collation of temperatures from stations by radio or internet gives warning when anomalous temperatures exist, and these air masses tend to move from west to east.

      We have a vastly improved warning system for tornadoes and hurricanes, in part because of geosynchronous weather satellites. However, I’m not sure that that our prediction of the time and location of the spawning of such events is significantly better than it was 50 years ago. There certainly is a lot of disagreement on the actual path of hurricanes and whether or not they will make landfall.

      When the day comes that I can routinely depend on a 7-day forecast (and not change the day before a predicted event) and can be provided with a high-resolution map of the amount of and location of precipitation, I will agree weather forecasting is “a lot more accurate.”

    • If only the lawsuit was about his projections but it’s not.It’s about his hockey stick reconstruction of temperature were he uses a stunted tree record and as a proxy,applies a 400 year smoothing to remove the little ice age and medieval warm periods then splices the modern record on end .Pure fraud and Dr. Fraudpants knows it.

    • Fortunately, some of us are concerned that due to Mann’s pseudo-science many have been affected to the negative (globally). It should be that people who defraud the public and harm people be held accountable prior to retiring on sumptuous enrichment directly arising from said fraud. It’s called justice. It’s not good enough that his predictions be proven wrong (as they will) 50 years hence, through observation. The evidence indicates quite clearly what he did and why he did it (climategate), and the public deserves to know the truth. As you do as well.

  11. “over its substitution of certain types of data for thermometer readings for time periods before thermometers were available.” Didn’t the “fraud” go the other way — substitution of thermometer data when the tree ring data went, er, south?

  12. I don’t mind the ruling. I want to see Mark Steyn get a chance, through his attorney or acting on his own behalf, to question Mann in court.

  13. Can’t help but notice that the criticisms of Mann’s stick are undisputedly understood to be valid while Mann asserted only that his graph had survived scrutiny. Very much a “you can’t criticize my accepted work, even if your facts are correct. Very much a self-serving, process is punishment judicial system in kicking back to the court for a full trial.

    I’m going to have to research the relationships between National Review, Steyn and Mann on this matter. I thought NR baked away to leave Steyn standing alone for the multimillion dollar process punishment.

  14. He lost his lawsuit against me because, as the court ruled, he failed to present evidence to support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. By contrast, I presented evidence that showed the theory was not supported.

    What always interested me was that they presented an untested theory as fact. They didn’t even consider a null hypothesis.

      • I’m seeing a document that says: “Oral Reasons for Judgment” …

        Which goes on to say:

        [1] THE COURT: I will render my reasons on the application to dismiss. I reserve the right to amend these reasons for clarity and grammar, but the result will not change.

        [2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.

      • Kind of like a baseball team that is a no-show for a game, they forfeit, which is considered a loss. Mann was unsuccessful in his action, because he dithered.

        I find that the delay is inexcusable.
        – The Honourable Mr. Justice Giaschi

      • “I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.”

        Can you say, “Purposeful Procrastination?” Mann brought the action against Ball, but did not prevail because of his inaction. The intent was to punish Ball. He did not achieve his intent. I’d say that means he lost through inaction. He lost his case because it was not prosecuted in a timely manner. Your emphasis on dismissal is like saying a player missed picking up a fumbled ball because he turned to wave at a fan, instead of through incompetence. The outcome is the same, whatever the reason.

        • I’d say that means he lost through inaction

          exactly Clyde. The case was lost because of Mann’s own (in)action: “That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed “. When you are the plaintiff and the suit is tossed because of what you did (or, as in this case, failed to do) – that is you losing the case. Had Mann not delayed, the suit would have gone to trial in a timely manner, instead Mann delayed and lost as a result. (Another hint that Mann lost/Ball won: the court awarded Ball costs. Winner’s don’t pay costs, and losers don’t get awarded costs)

      • It was dismissed because of Mann’s delays. When the plaintiff is the cause of the dismissal, that’s a defacto win for the defendant.

      • And equally when the case is dismissed because of the plaintiff’s actions, that is a defacto loss for the plaintiff. In short, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to it as “he (mann) lost his lawsuit” even if you don’t wish to ascribe it as a win for the defendant.

      • Thank you everyone for pointing out that Mr. Ball was incorrect in saying: “as the court ruled, he failed to present evidence to support the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory”

        • Sorry Chris, that is not what I pointed out. I pointed out that you were wrong to say that Mann did not lose the case. I’m guessing that your lack of understanding of basic facts extends well beyond this case.

        • re: Christina Widmann November 27, 2019 at 10:44 am
          Thank you everyone for pointing out that Mr. Ball was …

          ————–

          How many cases, at bar* and on average, do you lose a year?
          .
          .
          .
          .
          * At bar; Now before the court. For example, an action that is before the court may be referred to as the case at bar.

        • Thank you everyone for pointing out that Mr. Ball was incorrect in saying…

          I see now, Christina, your problem is one of reading comprehension fail. No one here has pointed out any such thing. What they have pointed out is that *you* were incorrect in saying:
          Neither you, nor Mann “won” or “lost” this case

          Mann lost by his own (in)actions, the case was dismissed because Mann delayed. And what, exactly do you think Mann was delaying doing that resulted in the “inexcusable” delay that resulted in him losing the case? (Hint: it, in part, involved a court direction for him to turn over all data relating to his graph before Feb. 20, 2017 he didn’t, hence point (6-f) in the court document you linked to).

        • Really Christina?
          By failing to show,The Mann failed to present any evidence.
          So Dr Ball is correct.
          The Mann failed to present evidence of anything at all.
          Thus including “evidence to support the AGW theory”.
          So what is with the nitpicking?

        • Or to put this another way Christina, name the people you are thanking and quote, in full, what they said that you are thanking them for. Because, frankly, where I’m sitting, I see ZERO people that your thank you applies to (ironically, you can’t even be thanking yourself as you didn’t mention any of the stuff for which you are handing out the thank you prior to your thank you post).

          “everyone” suggest more than one person (not ZERO as the case turns out to be). A total of 5 people replied under Tim’s posting (at the time I’m typing this): yourself, myself, Gator, Clyde, and _Jim only 1 of them said anything about Tim Ball’s post being wrong (that would be you and you alone) and the point mentioned was whether or not the dismissal counted as a win or a loss for the participants (which is not what your thank you was about). 3 of the other 4 posters (myself, Clyde, and Gator) all pointed out that *you* were wrong and that it was a *loss* for Mann with the remaining poster (_Jim) simply quoting the court document and highlighting the bits about the case being dismissed for delay, which doesn’t do what your thank you post suggests, particularly when you consider the facts behind what exactly it was that Mann was delaying doing.

        • Gator: re-read what I posted…….this had nothing to do with “evidence of AGW” as Ball claims. The case was about libel.
          _Jim: irrelevant, both Mann and Ball “lost” and their lawyers “won” (made money).
          Endicott: see above response to _Jim
          Robertson, read the decision, and pay close attention the the mention of “binders” made by the Judge. Plenty of evidence was presented to the court, so as I have said, Ball was incorrect in his post. Also not Mr. Robertson, that this case was not about AGW, it was about libel.

          • Christina Widmann –

            o Immune to facts

            o Resistant to logic

            o Defiant to the end regarding the plain wording found in the “Oral Reasons for Judgment” section of the court document she linked to.

          • Chris, I didn’t address Dr Ball’s post, I addressed your post. You were and are wrong. Mann lost the case he brought forward by dithering for years, and the judge said as much. The reason Mann dithered is because he knew he was wrong, and that he could not win, so in that case Dr Ball is closer to the truth than you ever will be.

            You are wrong Chris. Period. Find a safe space and get over it.

          • Gator posts: “The reason Mann dithered is because he knew he was wrong, and that he could not win”

            That is a marvelous assertion not at all based on any evidence. How do you know what Mann “knew?”

            The issue of litigation was never resolved, therefore nobody “won.”

            If an arrested suspect’s case is dismissed because the prosecutor forgot to cross a “t” in the indictment, does that mean the suspect did not commit the crime?

          • Chris, an honest man, especially a scientist bent on saving the world, would not refuse to show his work. Mann is a fraud and he knows it. If you don’t, I’m sure you can easily find a bridge for sale.

            The opposite of a skeptic is a gullible. Your true colors are showing.

          • “I didn’t address Dr Ball’s post” says Gator.
            .
            Gator, maybe you should address my original post..
            .
            But before you do, take note of what the Judge wrote in the opinion:
            .
            The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences.

            The point is that this lawsuit has NOTHING to do with AGW.

          • Gator, maybe you should address my original post

            Multiple people here have multiple times. Your original post:

            Neither you, nor Mann “won” or “lost” this case. It was dismissed because of delay.

            And you were WRONG. Mann *did* lose because of the delay *he* caused. When you are the plaintiff and your case gets tossed because of what you did (delayed, delayed, delayed) that is a loss. When the judge awards costs to your opponent (IE Mann gets to pay Balls legal bill) that’s called LOSING.

            I noticed you didn’t answer my previous questions to you: what, exactly do you think Mann was delaying doing that resulted in the “inexcusable” delay that resulted in him losing the case?

            I also noticed you were unable to “name the people you are thanking and quote, in full, what they said that you are thanking them for.”

            you dodging and weaving shows that even you are aware of how wrong you are but can’t bring yourself to publicly admit it. pathetic.

          • If an arrested suspect’s case is dismissed because the prosecutor forgot to cross a “t” in the indictment, does that mean the suspect did not commit the crime?

            It means the arrested suspect won the case/the prosecutor lost the case. winning and losing cases is not the same thing as guilt or innocence. You can win a case and be guilty as sin, just means that they couldn’t prove your guilt in a court of law.

      • Ball was the defendant. Well Mann did not show up the case was dismissed. Ball won. Mann won’t be able to sue him on the same facts in the future.

        • Correct Philo, Mann determined that even if he won, Ball doesn’t have “deep pockets” making winning the lawsuit pointless.

          • Philo: Ball won
            you:Correct Philo

            See even you admit Ball won/Mann lost. So what was the point of your posts up to now? oh yeah, they were pointless.

        • [2] The defendant

          brings an application

          for an order

          dismissing the action {M. Mann’s lawsuit]

          for delay. {M. Mann dragged his feet, did not appear willing to actually ‘carry out’ his lawsuit against Ball]

          Repeat after me: [2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.

          Thank you.

      • True – Ball did not “win”

        The case was dismissed for want of processcution by Mann. However the lack of processecution by Mann resulted in partial award of attorney fees to Ball

        • One wonders, can you people read?

          Given you might be able to read, the question then arises: Is the difficulty one of comprehending what one reads?

          Maybe it would help to have a Canadian lawyer explain what took place (I’m giving you and I an out.)

          • Many non-legal types incorrectly characterize the events as Ball winning. Kinda of a generic/layman’s interpretation, but in reality not a “win”.

            Ball only won his motion to dismiss. He did not win the case. Defendants by the nature of the legal system can never win (absent a counter suit). Defendants can only “not” lose.

            Fortunately under the canadian legal system, the loser can be compelled to pay the defendants legal fees. In this case, Mann as loser was ordered to pay attorney fees to Ball (amount to be determined).
            The best characterization is that Ball came close to breaking even.

            Jim That should clarify most of the confusion in your and others responses

          • In this case, Mann as loser was ordered to pay attorney fees to Ball…

            Yes, Mann lost and Ball won. End of story.

          • re: Many non-legal types incorrectly characterize the events as Ball winning. Kinda of a generic/layman’s interpretation, but in reality not a “win”.

            THEN you go on to say:

            Fortunately under the canadian legal system, the loser can be compelled to pay the defendants legal fees. In this case, Mann as loser was ordered to pay attorney fees to Ball

            A 5th grader would say Ball won; he’s paying. Furthermore, it’s on account of intentional delay on Mann’s part. Looks pretty plain to me too; I’d have to agree with the hypothetical 5th grader. Maybe you don’t use logic/language/meaning the same way a straight-shooter would? You want to twist it otherwise is your prerogative.

          • Joe, In law there are only winners and losers. Mann lost (by your own admission and I quote “Mann as loser “) therefore the guy on the other side, Ball, wins. Loser pays. Who does the loser pay to? the winner. Mann pays. Who is he paying to? Ball. Mann lost, Ball one.

            Defendants can only “not” lose

            Yeah, it’s called “winning”. Something you are clearly not acquainted with. 😉

        • True – Ball did not “win”

          Yes, he did. He didn’t “win” in the way you were hoping for/against, but “win” he did.

          The case was dismissed for want of processcution by Mann

          When the plaintiff fails to make his case resulting in the case being tossed, that’s a “win” for the defendant. Mann’s case was dismissed because Mann refused to make a case. That’s his loss, and Ball’s win.

          However the lack of processecution by Mann resulted in partial award of attorney fees to Ball

          again, that’s a “win” for Ball/”loss” for Mann. Losers pay. Mann pays. Mann is the loser, which makes Ball the winner.

    • Tim Ball: can you give us an update on your progress on costs? Are you going to have the costs assessed, or are Mann’s lawyers going to be reasonable? If an assessment will be necessary, how long do you estimate it will take? And finally , how much will you be requesting in round figures?
      (Curious retired Ontario lawyer.)

  15. History won’t be kind to Mann. It won’t be long at all in the Solar Minimum when we have enough empirical data to wipe out Mann’s false predictions once and for all. There should be a criminal investigation of his fraud.

  16. If the speech in all these cases had been held to be unprotected, our Nation’s system of self-government would not have been seriously threatened,…

    If people in prominent positions are not opposed to not using double negatives, then the likelihood of readers not understanding what they are not willing to say clearly would be a non-issue. [I think I got that right — I’m still raging on the blockquote’s lack of clarity]

    Just say what you gotta say in a straightforward, confident, clear manner! Double negative constructions like that are just wimpy, irritating, an ineffectual.

  17. They’re claims are TRUE. That’s why the lawsuit should have been dismissed.

    Mann’s choice to use select data to support his claims is considered “Fraud” in the scientific community.

    That’s simply a fact.

    The truth is always a proper defense against claims of defamation.

    • Yes, but in order to air the truth, one has to get to the trial. Mann delayed, delayed again, and then delayed some more. He had no intention of ever reaching the court room (probably because he knows the truth is not on his side).

  18. The court should have ruled in favor of National Review. This in intelligent free speech where the facts are not made up.

    The point is National Review provided a view of Mann’s work that is supported by science and observation. The criticism is factually based and logical in its structure.

    Mann’s argument that is cohorts do support him does not change the fact there the controversy about the Hockey Stick graph is real.

    It its petition to the high court, National Review argued its criticisms of the graph’s “cherry-picking of data and apples-to-oranges comparisons,” were valid, adding that since it was at the center of a larger controversy about climate change the op-ed fell squarely within protected speech and National Review could not be sued for defamation.

    • re: William Astley November 27, 2019 at 2:13 pm
      The court should have ruled in favor of National Review. This in intelligent free speech where the facts are not made up.

      ——————-

      You aren’t paying attention. And, you’re not the only one; you’ve got lots of uninformed company.

      Fact: The lawsuit had/has not ‘run its course’ in the lower court yet. The SC is hesitant to engage UNTIL the case in the lower court runs its course.

      Capiche?

      Duane above does a very good job in pointing this out above. Look for Duane’s post.

      Here’s a link -> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/26/alito-pens-fiery-dissent-after-court-declines-to-hear-dispute-between-climate-professor-national-review/#comment-2856283

      • Fact: The lawsuit had/has not ‘run its course’ in the lower court yet

        Doesn’t really matter. Some cases don’t “run their courses” in the lower courts as sometimes (doesn’t happen often, but it happens often enough that the lawyers decided it was worth a shot) higher courts will take it out of the lower courts hands if they feel a bigger (usually constitutional) issue is at stake – Hence Alito’s “fiery defense of free speech” in his dissenting opinion. Clearly Alito doesn’t agree with your legal reasoning (and I suspect he wasn’t the only member of the court, it was likely a 5-4 decision so had just one other member, probably Roberts, agreed with Alito, the SC would be taking the case now rather than later after the lower courts “run their course”) .

          • re: Doesn’t subtract from “the fact.”

            still doesn’t make “the fact” matter for the reasons already stated.

          • re: “still doesn’t make “the fact” matter for the reasons already stated.”

            Maybe YOUR reason, but, you don’t / you most likely didn’t consider what reason I had in mind when I listed it. Confess, you don’t know everything, nor do you know the REASONS for why everything is done.

            GO BACK and LOOK a the post to which I replied. Maybe that will give you hint as to my motivation. Beyond that, I consider this matter closed, and I still stand behind what was posted.

          • _Jim, reality doesn’t care about your reasons. You state a “fact” as if it was the be all and end all and then have the nerve to accuse others of thinking they “know everything”. The “fact” is your fact doesn’t mean a whole lot as the higher courts can (and sometimes do) the very thing that you think your “fact” prevents them from doing (the hint is in the fact that lawyers can and do bother petitioning them in the first place). what you stand behind matters just as little as your “fact”.

        • re: “Doesn’t really matter”

          Maybe you didn’t see this post cited below, John. It was posted earlier and is a much better response, observation and summary of what it may all mean. Is is from “joe – the non climate scientist” on November 29, 2019 at 6:10 am.

          I still insist most ppl have missed this (the mechanics of the workings of the court system and the attendant ‘workflow’ from inferior court to superior court) entirely, and is the only point of my posts on this subject. Everything else is ‘chewing around the periphery’.

          The cert petition was as best a move to get the DC panel to move the case off the back burner. The DC court of appeals, knows they 3 judge panel screwed up and at best are looking for a way craft a ruling.

          The good thing is Alito’s dissent from denial, gives the DC panel a roadmap to correct the 3judge panel ruling if they agree to hear the case en banc. Further, Alito’s dissent for denial, gives the panel a saving face way of correcting the 3 judge panel’s prior ruling.

  19. This sets up the fun round; Discovery will include Requests for Production of Documents, Interrogatories and Depositions (probably video). Oh what fun! Does Mann claim he was cleared by Penn State? Looks like one needs to dig into what went on there! Does Mann have some data to support his case? Or is it missing?

  20. MarkW,

    In response to your question:

    “”Countless examples” – Name a couple”

    Off the top of my head ; Marc Rich and Pincus Green. Paid mega bail money and skipped the country the night they made bail on a chartered private jet. Both were pardoned by Bill Clinton after Marc’s wife donated a million $ to the Clinton presidential library.

    https://www.forbes.com/profile/marc-rich/#562f39dd5be4
    https://www.economist.com/obituary/2013/07/06/marc-rich
    https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/giving-up-citizenship-and-the-taxes-that-come-with-it/

  21. In the end, the court case will resolve nothing. When the case resumes, Mann will continue to avoid discovery, which may result in his suit being dismissed, or the judge may rule that the discovery demands against him are unreasonable, and allow the trial to go forward without them. Then any ultimate dismissal or verdict will be opposed by the other side, who may appeal until higher courts refuse to hear the case, or just quietly give up the effort. The same is true for Steyn’s countersuit. The judge can find many reasons to dismiss it without subjecting Mann to any discovery. As Steyn has commented many times, the ordeal of the court process is the punishment, which has been Mann’s intent all along.

  22. ““If the speech in all these cases had been held to be unprotected, our Nation’s system of self-government would not have been seriously threatened,” Alito wrote after naming several recent cases in which the Supreme Court upheld controversial speech, including the trade name “F-U-C-T” for a clothing company. “But … the protection of even speech as trivial as a naughty trademark for jeans can serve an important purpose: It can demonstrate that this Court is deadly serious about protecting freedom of speech.””

    So if the court is serious about free speech, why is it allowing the case against the free speech of National review and Steyn to proceed?

    Is it only those who kowtow to the church of AGW who get free speech?

  23. It its petition to the high court, National Review argued its criticisms of the graph’s “cherry-picking of data and apples-to-oranges comparisons,” were valid –> With its petition to the high court, National Review argued its criticisms of the graph’s “cherry-picking of data and apples-to-oranges comparisons,” were valid.

  24. Ca we borrow Alito here in Austria for a while? The Green party here sues everyone who does openly disagrees with them no matter the truth. They just want to set the example that they will economically destroy anyone who dares to oppose them in order to deter others from doing so. If Free Speech can be inhibited by expensive court action, it’s not free.

Comments are closed.