Friday Funny – Venal Swamp Mann

There’s a saying “Strike while the iron is hot.” There’s also a saying “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” In this case, I think the latter applies.

Serial climate litigator Michael E. Mann, has come up with a new angle; he’s calling Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to produce some “evidence” via sending a superfluous and harassing legal notice. Apparently, he’s sending them to others as well, including Lindzen, Christy and Wegman.

This could be construed as witness tampering. Essentially, Mann’s legal team is sending legal malarkey to anyone who might conceivably be an expert witness for the defense. It appears the goal is to intimidate them with far-reaching document production requests.  

Steve McIntyre has this to say on Twitter:


I have a nominee for most absurdly venal activity during COVID lockdown.

Michael Mann has ramped up his vanity libel lawsuit. Last Friday, McKitrick and I (who are non-parties in lawsuit) were notified by a Washington lawyer for one of the defendants that Mann’s lawyer had requested that he (the defendant’s lawyer) accept service of (separate) subpoenas to McKitrick and myself for documents.

To be clear, McKitrick and I are not only not defendants in Mann’s stupid lawsuit, but, in one of his pleadings, Mann offered up that we had never accused him of fraud. Mann asked the lawyer to accept service, presumably because we’re Canadian. It was explained to us that, if we didn’t authorize the Washington lawyer to accept the subpoenas, Mann would have to initiate proceedings in a Canadian court in which he would have to justify his subpoena. It’s hard to picture a Canadian court being interested in breaking our coronavirus lockdown in order to accommodate Mann’s vanity litigation. But it proceeds onward in the fetid swamp of D.C. courts.

Also, if Mann is interested in what I’ve said about his work, he ought to start with the many posts and comments at Climate Audit, all of which are publicly available. He can collate them to his heart’s content on his own time and his own nickel.

Josh and I collaborated on an appropriate response.

UPDATE: Mark Steyn (an actual defendant) also weighs in here:

The two most non-essential professions on the planet right now are that of Big Climate alarmist and his attorney in a vanity lawsuit. Yet Michael E Mann, inventor of the global-warming “hockey stick”, and his counsel John Williams are disinclined to let their lousy eight-year-old defamation suit against me shelter in place for a couple of months, and the other day they made a surprise move. By which I mean a deranged and desperate move.

Before we get to that, let me make a general observation: You’ll have noticed that millions of people around the world are what one might call Coronaskeptics and pop up on TV and radio pooh-poohing the pandemic models. One reason they do that is because Mann’s we’re-all-gonna-die school of data analysis did immense damage to modeling in general – to the point where large numbers of persons simply dismiss all models as being a crap shoot of bollocks …because, as I heard a radio host say yesterday, they’d seen all the climate alarmist models fail to pan out. That’s on Mann and his chums.

Read it all here:

https://www.steynonline.com/10175/the-two-most-non-essential-professions-on

0 0 vote
Article Rating
106 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus
April 3, 2020 8:45 am

Awesome, Anthony and Josh..

Reply to  Marcus
April 3, 2020 4:50 pm

Mann is not a litigator…there is some left wing money (Soros or Soros type) that pays a left wing law firm to use the law as a weapon to club opposition. I just heard the Governor of California say that “we” have over 80 lawsuits against the Trump administration.

Ljh
April 3, 2020 8:49 am

I hope that when this corona hysteria is over, the public comes to view any “expert” running models on incomplete data to cause the shutdown of the world economy as an object of derision and appropriately put them in the stocks in a public place.

Richard
Reply to  Ljh
April 3, 2020 9:03 am

You really think that’s libel to happen?

Brian R Catt
Reply to  Richard
April 3, 2020 12:00 pm

Is that a Freudian typo?

Richard
Reply to  Brian R Catt
April 3, 2020 1:38 pm

My slips might be Freudian, but my bras are definitely Jungian. I am so conflicted.

John in Oz
Reply to  Richard
April 3, 2020 4:29 pm

You wear slips – definitely confused

The lockdown has definitely lowered the quality of humour

Capn Mike
Reply to  Richard
April 3, 2020 12:50 pm

LOL

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Capn Mike
April 4, 2020 7:13 am

oh I dunno
someone pointed out the death tolls are Female /Male
and asked where the other 57 varieties were? or arent they getting sick?
lol

Uzurbrain
Reply to  Ljh
April 3, 2020 10:02 am

The similarity of the results of these various CV “PREDICTIONS” “prognostications” to the climate change “prognostications” is utterly amazing. both border on worthless.

Justin Burch
April 3, 2020 8:50 am

I would not accept service via the lawyer. Let him spend more money tacking you down and serving you in Canada.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Justin Burch
April 3, 2020 3:39 pm

. . . and then I would charge reasonable professional fees of $200 USD per hour (these are, after all, actions related to legal proceedings) for the many hours it will take me to diligently look through all of the possible places I may have stored relevant documents, and the many hours it will take to assemble those documents for copying, and the many more hours it will take to print out pertinent electronic files on my slow home computer. Then I will have to spend more of my professional time going to and from my home to the copy service provider and to the post office.

I might provide a professional estimate that perhaps 1000 hours will be involved for me to do the thorough job this matter requires (you know, I don’t move as fast as I used to) . . . and finally ask what charge account you, Michael Mann or your attorney, will be providing that I can bill weekly for my services in response to your subpoena.

patrick healy
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
April 4, 2020 7:49 am

Gordon Dressler,
Very good. All these are spawns of Satan ( I mean Mann and lawyers)
Are you a Lawler? It reminds me of the time I was moving house and I phoned our lawyer here in Scotland and he charged us £20 -00 for answering the phone.

April 3, 2020 8:54 am

One thing: The cartoon caption should be “Michael Mann extends his libel case to MORE people who didn’t libel him.”

DonM
Reply to  Writing Observer
April 3, 2020 9:43 am

yep … totally wrong caption.

lance
April 3, 2020 9:07 am

Is it April 1st still?

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  lance
April 3, 2020 10:01 am

April 1st is groundhog day for Michael Mann.

Jeff Id
April 3, 2020 9:11 am

Michael Mann is not a fraud, he is an actual person. His hockeystick work however has the same relationship with temperature as the track a parasitic cat leaves on a floor dragging its tail.

IanH
Reply to  Jeff Id
April 3, 2020 12:30 pm

Jeff you may have been one of the first to remind me why we consider the random walk, surely applicable in the parasitic cat example.

Ian

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Jeff Id
April 3, 2020 1:36 pm

I might think the cat trail on the floor might change depending on the temperature of the floor.
It might even be a better indication.

rbabcock
April 3, 2020 9:12 am

All this can work both ways. File a frivolous lawsuit against Mann and start peppering him with requests for documents, etc. Better yet, have 10 people file lawsuits against Mann.

commieBob
Reply to  rbabcock
April 3, 2020 11:44 am

It seems to me the reason Mann inexcusably delayed proceedings in his case against Dr. Ball is that he was afraid to subject himself to questioning and he was afraid to produce evidence.

I wonder if Mark Steyn’s countersuit against Mann is still in play>

john harmsworth
Reply to  rbabcock
April 3, 2020 11:50 am

If there was justice in “the Law”, there would be a clear avenue to bring suit against Mann for his malicious deceit and name his publisher and peer reviewers as co-defendants.

Dave
April 3, 2020 9:19 am

Best advice for Mann. When you are in a hole. Stop digging

Bear
Reply to  Dave
April 3, 2020 10:03 am

Personally, I’d just like to see Mann jump in the hole and cover himself up.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Bear
April 3, 2020 12:10 pm

+1 Sometimes I really wish there was a thumbs up button.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Bear
April 3, 2020 4:31 pm

He may find willing helpers with shovels. When all else fails, keep digging. If the shoe fits…

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
April 4, 2020 8:13 am

Like they said on The Simpson’s, if you want to get out of the hole, “dig up, stupid”.

DonM
Reply to  Dave
April 3, 2020 1:28 pm

first, he needs to recognize that he is actually an a hole … until then he won’t stop.

rah
Reply to  DonM
April 3, 2020 4:15 pm

Lets hope someday soon the sides of the hole collapse on him.

Juan Slayton
April 3, 2020 9:24 am

Giving McIntyre and Mckitrick an opportunity to testify could be the self goal of all time. Are you sure this had nothing to do with April 1?

StephenP
April 3, 2020 9:31 am

I thought one problem was that Mann has refused to disclose his workings, so the request for proof should rebound on him to disclose them so that they will provide the evidence he is asking for.

Joe the non climate scientist
Reply to  StephenP
April 3, 2020 7:32 pm

Most of the mbh98 data is available. It is the negative results of the r2 verification stats that have been withheld.

Drake
Reply to  Joe the non climate scientist
April 4, 2020 6:54 am

I think that possibly the data they KEPT TO USE is available, but not the data they discarded because it did not fit their preconceived notion of the results.

Gary Pearse
April 3, 2020 9:32 am

So, because McIntyre and Mckittrick did NOT libel Mann, he’s hoping for evidence that supports his case?? Hey, M&M totally deconstructed the hockeystick showing that Mann’s statistical manipulations created hockeysticks out of “red noise” (random walk statistics) IIRC, and they sliced and diced his selection of proxies which accentuated the hockey stick shape.

One, the Tiljander series – bottom mud from a Finnish lake of that name was used upside down and the disturbed top of the series, it was cautioned by the discoverer of the series, should not be used! They also discovered Mann’s truncation of the decline of more recent tree ring temperatures and its replacement by the smooth”spliced” modern temperature record. That isn’t even the full extent of the hs recipe.

Perhaps Mann’s Lawyers should take a shortcut and subpoena McIntyre and McKittrick to make a presentation to the court.

Bear
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 3, 2020 10:07 am

IIRC, Mann said he hadn’t computed an R**2 but McIntyre found it buried in a folder in Mann’s data.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 3, 2020 12:10 pm

Michael Mann’s non-centered principal components may have been maximizing some mixture of temperature and variance, Here’s what Ian Joliffe, Ph D and author of “Principal Component Analysis” had to say about Mann’s “Hockey Stick”:

“Apologies if this is not the correct place to make these comments. I am a complete newcomer to this largely anonymous mode of communication. I’d be grateful if my comments could be displayed wherever it is appropriate for them to appear.

It has recently come to my notice that on the following website, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008… .. , my views have been misrepresented, and I would therefore like to correct any wrong impression that has been given.

An apology from the person who wrote the page would be nice.

In reacting to Wegman’s criticism of ‘decentred’ PCA, the author says that Wegman is ‘just plain wrong’ and goes on to say ‘You shouldn’t just take my word for it, but you *should* take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA, author of a seminal book on the subject. He takes an interesting look at the centering issue in this presentation.’ It is flattering to be recognised as a world expert, and I’d like to think that the final sentence is true, though only ‘toy’ examples were given. However there is a strong implication that I have endorsed ‘decentred PCA’. This is ‘just plain wrong’.

The link to the presentation fails, as I changed my affiliation 18 months ago, and the website where the talk lived was closed down. The talk, although no longer very recent – it was given at 9IMSC in 2004 – is still accessible as talk 6 at Ian Jolliffe’s recent talks

It certainly does not endorse decentred PCA. Indeed 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. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally. It is possible that there are good reasons for decentred PCA to be the technique of choice for some types of analyses and that it has some virtues that I have so far failed to grasp, but I remain sceptical.” -Ian Jolliffe

James R Clarke
Reply to  Alan McIntire
April 3, 2020 4:14 pm

“My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick.”

It is understandable that Ian Jolliffe would have that impression, but the climate crisis narrative was not built on any evidence at all! It is and always has been a massive PR campaign. The hockey stick was an essential component to that campaign. It is a fiction sold as scientific evidence, much like the climate models. The whole narrative is comprised with fictions sold as evidence.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 3, 2020 8:12 pm

“One, the Tiljander series – bottom mud from a Finnish lake of that name was used upside down and the disturbed top of the series, it was cautioned by the discoverer of the series, should not be used! They also discovered Mann’s truncation of the decline of more recent tree ring temperatures and its replacement by the smooth”spliced” modern temperature record. That isn’t even the full extent of the hs recipe.”

The Tiljander paper didn’t exist at the time if the original HS (MBH98), as far as I know. Mann DID use it in a much later paper, 2008 maybe. The MBH98 HS relied totally on two series of stripbark pines, grossly overweighted so as to drown out all others.

Unfortunately, many of the old links on Climate Audit and on McKitrick’s site are dead.

April 3, 2020 9:36 am

Is that, what M.M. calls a Sabbatical ???
Just curious 😀

RockyRoad
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 3, 2020 2:58 pm

M.M. taking a break from being a confirmed jurisprudential lunatic?

Even a pandemic doesn’t slow him down!

Nick Werner
April 3, 2020 9:38 am

Something about Josh’s cartoon reminded me of a Star Trek NG episode featuring a character named Armus.
But I’d never thought of him as a lawyer or a former Nobel-laureate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_of_Evil

Javert Chip
April 3, 2020 9:40 am

I’m hoping people are watching the rigor America’s Dr Fauci & Brix are using in their modeling.

Dr Brix, in particular, goes out of her way to emphasize the need to reconcile REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE with the model, and change the model if does not reflect reality. A modeler from Cambridge has already had to walk back a spectacular modeling failure.

This is all rather refreshing; it’d be nice if of this scientific methodology dribbles down into the Climate Science clown car.

EdB
Reply to  Javert Chip
April 3, 2020 10:55 am

What feedback parameters are built into the models? None? Collect data then run another model? It will be out of whack in two days.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Javert Chip
April 3, 2020 11:56 am

I think the climate modelers are too busy re-jigging their models to demonstrate how it is still warming even while Arctic ice is making a comeback.

philincalifornia
April 3, 2020 9:45 am

Come on Steve and Ross, be nice. Please find the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age for him. The “scientific” nincompoop appears to have lost them

Mr.
April 3, 2020 9:47 am

Steyn has previously concluded that –
“the process is the punishment”

Given how long (8 years) Mann has been firing legal blanks in this deluded lawsuit, would now be an appropriate time for some legal administration authority to require him to disclose –
1. how much legal costs has he racked up;
2. who is paying these legal bills.

Richard
Reply to  Mr.
April 3, 2020 10:18 am

Mann’s unmanly approach: when in doubt, bluster and shout!

Joel O'Bryan
April 3, 2020 10:06 am

Libel is just alleged by Micky Mann. The cartoon caption seems to imply something not yet established.

Cam_S
April 3, 2020 10:14 am

Coronavirus… In British Columbia, the government liquor stores are open. The courts are not.
—————————–

Gin before justice in Canada? Pity

Why are liquor clerks stocking shelves and serving customers, but judges have gone home to self-isolate in their ivory towers?

We have “essential” access to booze, but courts have been closed and the rule of law has become enforceable only on an “urgent” basis?

https://vancouversun.com/news/ian-mulgrew-gin-before-justice-in-canada-pity/

Nick Werner
Reply to  Cam_S
April 3, 2020 10:31 am

This is British Columbia, not the British Isles.
“Essential service” and “Sober as a judge” have different legal definitions here.

czechlist
Reply to  Cam_S
April 3, 2020 2:36 pm

I’ve noticed that in the US neither courts nor congress are deemed essential.
Our doctors, nurses , hospital janitors, truckers grocers, plumbers, sanitation engineers…are reporting for work but the House of Representatives doesn’t want to show up to conduct business IAW The Constitution.
I have not seen any proof that there was a Quorum when they voted a $2T spending bill last week and without a recorded vote we will never know.
And Massie was condemned as a “grandstander” for insisting the Constitution be followed
sad times

Joel O'Bryan
April 3, 2020 10:17 am

Actually the way I would fight this in the US Court say with Lindzen receiving one would be to fire back an invoice for administrative costs for the search, indexing, and compilation to Mann’s lawyer.
For example, making FOIA requests to a US government agency comes with fees.
https://foia.state.gov/Request/Fees.aspx

If the expected costs for the request exceeds $25, then in the case of US Dept of State, they state,
” If the Department estimates that the search costs will exceed $25.00, the requester shall be so notified. Such notice shall offer the requester the opportunity to confer with Department personnel with the object of reformulating the request to meet the requester’s needs at a lower cost. The request shall not be processed further unless the requester agrees to pay the estimated fees.

Since these folks are not party to the law suit, they are entitled to compensation for time spent satisfying the fishing expedition from Mann’s lawyers. As such the subpoenas should follow some standard guidance such as, “It is recommended that the requester indicates the maximum amount of fees that they are willing to pay with their initial request. ”

And then fire back to Mann’s lawyers what it will cost them:

“Search and Review Rates

The categories of personnel that may conduct searches and reviews and the estimated hourly costs based on the average current salary rates (including benefits) for those categories are:

Administrative/clerical – $21/hour
Professional – $41/hour
Executive — $76/hour

Duplication of Records

Records shall be duplicated at a rate of $.15 per page. “

My guess is once Mann realizes he would be compensating one of those folks at $76/hr, they will withdraw the subpoena.

Scissor
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 3, 2020 11:31 am

Good thought, but those rates are too low by a factor of 3-4 or more.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Scissor
April 3, 2020 12:03 pm

True, but they probably jive with governments understanding of costs. In the private sector we normally understand that personnel costs include vacation and holiday time as well as all other overhead such as payroll taxes. I wouldn’t be surprised if government is blissfully unaware of the majority of their labour costs.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 3, 2020 11:52 am

My guess is Mann has financial backing and doesn’t care about cost.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
April 3, 2020 1:19 pm

If the fees for non-party discovery began running to $1,000’s I bet they would. Lindzen could also throw in his attorney fees in there and running say ~
$5,000, that would make them back off.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
April 3, 2020 2:56 pm

Mann has access to a fund for paying legal expenses that was put together by some environmental group – Natural Resources Defence Fund(?) or some such. They may abandon that practice when the smoke clears from the suit against Mark Steyn. They weren’t expecting Steyn’s countersuit of a minimum $20m “or whatever the judge thinks to be appropriate” + costs.

Mark is a gutty guy. Mann’s MO is to drag things out beyond the threshold of pain and then seek to settle (in his favor of course). The countersuit locks Mann in. If he backs out, the countersuit is pretty much a slam dunk.

DC Swamp lefty judges perpetrated a very unjust situation for Steyn by setting aside the Anti-SLAPP statute that was made for this type of litigation. However, they waited too long and now SCOTUS vacancies are filled with Constitutional Conservatives. There is no question Steyn will take it to the Supreme Court as a Free Speech case and what Steyn refers to as the DC toilet court may just kick the can down the road.

This guy, with all the media, the big lefty polit machine and kangaroo courts called The Human Rights Tribunals (both the British Coumbia and Ontario Kanga courts) that were created by the lefty diversity perversity types, squared off against the Canadian Islamic Council… and Steyn won! It resulted in overturning a Federal Statute section on hate speech, etc. This was David against Golaith.

Scissor
April 3, 2020 10:20 am

Michael Mann is a China apologist, who is very much like them in terms of honesty.

stinkerp
April 3, 2020 10:29 am

A perfect opportunity for Mssrs. McIntrye and McKitrick to provide an Arkell v. Pressdram response.

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html

Phil
April 3, 2020 10:43 am

There is nothing wrong with modeling. There is something wrong with understating the uncertainty of models. The problem is with the ego of modelers, who, if they were honest about the uncertainty of their models, would find that they would be ignored as the models would be useless for establishing public policy. In the current fiasco, the cost of relying on models may exceed US$5 Trillion – in just weeks. The Green Nude Eel has estimates of costing up to US$90 Trillion. No burlesque show is worth that much.

Kurt
Reply to  Phil
April 3, 2020 2:55 pm

There’s nothing wrong with modeling as long as you accept that the modeled results are nothing but a hypothesis or a prediction, and not data. The problem with climate alarmists is that they misuse the models by treating the output as a substitute for data that, in the real world, they can’t collect by an actual scientific process.

MarkW
Reply to  Kurt
April 3, 2020 4:36 pm

Agree completely. In industry, models are used to test new ideas and to help weed through your various design options. But no matter how much computer modeling is done, Physical models are still built and full size prototypes are tested, often to destruction.

Reply to  MarkW
April 3, 2020 8:25 pm

This is my doorstop argument:

“Regardless of how you arrived at it, if you are making a claim for abnormal warming since 1850, you are obliged to explain how it does not show up in NOAA’s (massaged) 100-million-recordings USHCN nor its 900-Million-recordings GHCN.”

R.S. Brown
April 3, 2020 10:44 am

I’ve had Climate Audit as a shortcut on my computer for a L O N G time.

Even before the Hockey Stick was broken, Steve McIntyre let the readers and
posters on Climate Audit know that the word “fraud” pertaining to Mann, et alia,
in a comment was fodder for the spam bin.

That prohibition covered both the statistical as well as the financial (grants) aspects
of climate studies. It was still in effect after those “stolen” e-mails were released.

Mann seems determined to plow the same field as many times as possible to
prevent anything he doesn’t personally plant from growing.

Steve Case
April 3, 2020 10:45 am

You’ll have noticed that millions of people around the world are what one might call Coronaskeptics and pop up on TV and radio pooh-poohing the pandemic models.

This is in the recent news:

Experts, Trump’s advisers doubt White House’s 240,000 coronavirus deaths estimate
MSN.com
At a task force meeting this week, according to two officials with direct knowledge of it, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told others that there are too many variables at play in the pandemic to make the models reliable: “I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models.”

Dr. Fauci, he don’ need no stinkin models
comment image

DonM
Reply to  Steve Case
April 3, 2020 1:38 pm

“I’ve looked at all the models. I’ve spent a lot of time on the models. They don’t tell you anything. You can’t really rely upon models.”

I am imagining the relationships Fauci has had with Christie Brinkley, Elle Macpherson, & Kathy Ireland, and what they did to him to make him so jaded.

Gunga Din
April 3, 2020 10:49 am

Mr. Laymann here.
I’m as much of an “expert” on climate as Mann. (And I don’t even play hockey!)
Where’s my notice?

Another thought for those who did get a notice. Reply, “You show me your’s and I’ll show you mine.”
(On second thought, that might not be worth it. You might start to feel sorry for the poor guy.)

EdB
April 3, 2020 11:00 am

M Mann has that counter suit by Steyn to worry about. (30M?).

If M Mann can ultimately get attestations from SM etc., that the word “fraud” is not appropriate, then he stands a decent chance of success. SM in particular admonished people not to use the F word. That should work to help M Mann.

Nick Werner
Reply to  EdB
April 3, 2020 12:16 pm

Also keep in mind that Dr. Mann appears to be climate science’s most distinguished transitory Nobel-laureate, and that climate science has more transitory Nobel-laureates than all other fields combined.

Scissor
Reply to  Nick Werner
April 3, 2020 12:58 pm

“Transitory,” is that anything like suppository?

john harmsworth
Reply to  Scissor
April 3, 2020 1:52 pm

it looks like science! But what’s that smell?

Nick Werner
Reply to  Scissor
April 4, 2020 7:56 am

For anyone who believes that both have the same type of end in mind, and neither pass the sniff test… I suppose so.

paul courtney
Reply to  EdB
April 4, 2020 2:58 pm

EdB: Not how it works. What if these attestations show they personally agree it’s fraud, but don’t want it published (or they might get sued)? Or their attestation reveals they don’t understand the legal term “fraud” (they’re not “climate scientists”, after all)? No, their opinion would not be relevant. This is an attempt by Mann’s big-time attorneys to bully M&M and any other expert Steyn might call, by demanding far more info than they are allowed to request. They just took a scolding from the (oh, happy day) new judge on the case (who appears to have a clue) for trying to do the same thing to Steyn.

Editor
April 3, 2020 11:19 am

Michael Mann – The only recipient for the past 20+ years of the annual Michael Mann Award.

Stay safe and healthy, all,
Bob

Phillip Bratby
April 3, 2020 11:26 am

Great cartoon. Thanks Josh

Betapug
April 3, 2020 11:45 am

Who on Planet Earth is funding Mann? Where does all the green come from?

Brian R Catt
Reply to  Betapug
April 3, 2020 12:09 pm

Its from the soylent green factory. Maurice Strong’s solution to a growing and more prosperous World. Run by the UN IPCC.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Betapug
April 3, 2020 12:18 pm

Filing this kind of garbage isn’t all that expensive. The guy’s just playing for time and hoping something happens to make it all go away – the counter-suit that is. Plus, since there is a counter-suit, Penn State’s insurance policy may have kicked in. Or alternatively, some sociopaths on the gravy train may have funded the peanuts for it.

Other than the fact this cretin is a worthless, all-world-POS, it’s hardly important now is it? Does anyone, other than the current and dwindling band of rabid kleptomaniacs actually believe that stupid bogus curve?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Betapug
April 4, 2020 12:34 am

Penn state taxpayers.

James
April 3, 2020 11:57 am

The subpoena may be an inventive legal maneuver on Mann’s attorney’s part to establish grounds to disqualify (non-responding) M&M as potential expert witnesses should this dumpster fire of a case ever proceed to trial.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  James
April 3, 2020 2:58 pm

That’s an interesting idea. So is Anthony’s speculation that this could constitute witness tampering. I’m close friends with another defendant in Mann’s suit, Rand Simberg. I’ll alert him to this.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
April 3, 2020 6:59 pm

I’m not an attorney but I was the corporate representative in a bogus lawsuit that lasted 10 years and covered 5 different US States. When they deposed me, they had to fly to me and, of course, subpoenaing for a deposition is privileged and in no way witness tampering.

My Company had $5 Million in insurance so we really messed with them, as one does.

I would guess they would have to fly to Canada (or bicycle, ha ha) to depose Steve and Ross. Rud Istvan will know.

Brian R Catt
April 3, 2020 12:24 pm

Strike while the iron is cold in PIltdown Mann’s case.

Capn Mike
April 3, 2020 12:52 pm

LOL

john york
April 3, 2020 1:59 pm

Where is Mann getting all the money to hire all these attorneys? His lawsuits have been ongoing for years and increasing in scope all the time. Where is the money coming from?

observa
Reply to  john york
April 3, 2020 4:52 pm

The enviro-industrial complex and you seriously believe you can dissect and untangle that infernal global machine? Don’t be silly or you’ll start believing you can get a handle on global climate with tree rings and other tea leaf readings- https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data
You just have to accept some things are simply unknown knowns.

Gonzo
April 3, 2020 2:14 pm

Unfortunately I think the doomers will use the corona response as a blueprint for the “climate crisis”When this is through. They’ll trot out that the air was “so clean” and Co2 emissions were so low to leverage driving and flying restrictions along with a huge crackdown on the oil/gas industry. My2cts

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Gonzo
April 3, 2020 3:08 pm

Clean air has nothing to do with CO2 which is invisible, odorless and beneficial to the biosphere.
Visible air pollution is not CO2.
CO2 Emissions will have dropped but whether that has any observable effect on the atmospheric CO2 concentration remains to be seen.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Gonzo
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 4, 2020 10:09 am

I know that. There is visibly less particulates in the atmosphere via satellite imaging! One of the doomer arguments is transportation particulates cause asthma etc….and they now call Co2 “carbon pollution”. You’re preaching to the choir here.

Gordon Dressler
April 3, 2020 2:44 pm

Mann’s foot dragging may have cost him and his attorney(ies) their case. To wit:

“Your honor, gentle men and women of the jury, the COVID-19 pandemic caused global emissions from burning fossil fuels to be reduced by 35% in a period of three months, and yet it has been another three months since then and we cannot detect ANY change in the slightly-exponentially increasing curve of atmospheric CO2 as measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa observatory.

“We therefore ask for immediate dismissal of this lawsuit for cause.”

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
April 3, 2020 4:38 pm

Is there any evidence that there has been any measurable decrease in CO2 production? Much less 35%.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  MarkW
April 3, 2020 8:47 pm

MarkW,
Instead of asking questions, gather your own data for CO2 in air from the major stations of Barrow Alaska, Mauna Loa, Cape Grim Tasmania and South Pole.
You will likely find that daily data for the month of March 2020 are not available to the public or are ncertified as yet or have important gaps of missing data. You will likely find that such an analysis by an “outsider” is not possible at this time. Geoff S

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
April 4, 2020 11:07 am

Gee . . . it wasn’t obvious my scenario was a projection to a future court pleading? Three months plus another three months would be six months from the beginning of significant world-wide fossil fuel cutbacks, which likely began early-February 2020 . . . only TWO months ago.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
April 4, 2020 11:24 am

And, to directly answer your question, assuming it relates solely to man-made CO2 emissions . . . ummm . . . let’s consider:
— air travel to/from major industrial nations down by about 90%,
— ocean cruises being cancelled,
— citizens in almost all “first world” nations being ordered/requested to shelter at home and not commute to work,
— major industries and small business going dormant for lack of customers and/or lack of product demand as people cut discretionary spending, particularly as the result of being laid off from work (e.g. look at the actions of automobile manufacturers),
— why is the price of gasoline falling so precipitously if not for lack of demand (= lack of consumption)? . . . answer: people aren’t driving as much (aka “social distancing”),
— etc., etc.

So, yeah, I can easily estimate 35% reduction in world-wide fossil fuel consumption will occur by the end of the next month . . . on this, I don’t really need to wait for the data.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
April 5, 2020 3:05 pm

OK . . . OK . . . I understand, one really does need hard data to support one’s assertion.

So, towards this end, this article in the news just today:
“Coronavirus shutdowns idle 29% of U.S. economy”. Link: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/coronavirus-shutdowns-idle-29-of-us-economy-2020-04-05?mod=home-page

Still most of the month of April yet to go for the CO2 reduction scenario in my postulated court pleading . . .

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 3, 2020 2:47 pm

I wonder what his employer Penn State Uni, or is it State Penn, think of this. Perhaps WUWT can find out?

Kurt
April 3, 2020 2:58 pm

Has anybody every found out who is funding Mann’s lawsuit? Scorched-earth tactics like his lawyers employ are usually used by giant corporations like Microsoft or General Electric to harry smaller litigants to death. Mann can’t be funding this nonsense all by his lonesome. Somebody else has to be ponying up a lot of money.

Robin
April 3, 2020 3:59 pm

Model and model again, but don’t involve nature. Nature has other ideas that we mere mortals don’t all too often understand.

observa
April 3, 2020 5:16 pm

“To be clear, McKitrick and I are not only not defendants in Mann’s stupid lawsuit, but, in one of his pleadings, Mann offered up that we had never accused him of fraud.”

Judge: Does that mean you pair of statistical experts can vouch for the fact Mike is not a fraud?
Ans: No yeronner we’re statistical experts and adjudicating between fraud, ignorance, sheer incompetence, delusional or what is he smoking isn’t exactly our field of technical expertise so we’ll let the facts and statistical analyses speak for themselves.

Jim G
April 3, 2020 5:36 pm

“…Last Friday, McKitrick and I (who are non-parties in lawsuit) were notified by a Washington lawyer for one of the defendants that Mann’s lawyer had requested that he (the defendant’s lawyer) accept service of (separate) subpoenas to McKitrick and myself for documents. ”

In the immortal words of Capt.Barbosa…

“I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request.”

gbm
April 3, 2020 7:17 pm

Rule 45. Subpoena

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1783

https://www.haguelawblog.com/2016/04/serving-a-subpoena-abroad-not-so-fast-counsel/

“If it crosses state lines, say from Florida or Georgia to New York or Minnesota, domestication is fairly pro forma. But when it crosses an international boundary, it cannot regain its coercive effect.* It becomes a simple piece of paper and, legally speaking, is reduced to a mere request.”

Court does not have authority to issue subpoena’s to a foreign national–who is not a U.S. national or resident of the United States–in a foreign country.

rah
April 4, 2020 12:55 am

When I read stories like this I always kind of wonder if they weren’t onto something back in the days when dueling was legal and an accepted norm.

igsy
April 4, 2020 4:54 am

I find this lawsuit to be an absurd exercise for many reasons, the main one being that Steyn did not call Mann a fraud. He said Mann was behind the fraudulent hockey-stick. “Fraudulent” is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as being characterised, based on, or done by fraud. “Fraud” has more than one specific meaning. From Merriam-Webster again, we get the following: (1) intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; (2) an act of deceiving or misrepresenting; (3) a person who is not what he or she pretends to be, and (4) one that is not what it seems or is represented to be.
Thanks to the groundbreaking efforts of Steve & Ross, we all now know that the hockey-stick is not, as claimed by Mann, a “robust”, “spatially-diverse” representation of past northern hemisphere temperatures that is “insensitive to the presence or absence of dendro”. Far from it. It would be better characterised as the history of trunk deformation in a clump of trees from a small site in the American South-West, but that’s by the by.
Therefore the hockey-stick is not what it seems or is represented to be. Therefore it is fraudulent. End of argument, or it should be.

Bro. Steve
April 4, 2020 5:28 am

Computer models are not science.

Tom Abbott
April 4, 2020 5:27 pm

From the article: “Before we get to that, let me make a general observation: You’ll have noticed that millions of people around the world are what one might call Coronaskeptics and pop up on TV and radio pooh-poohing the pandemic models. One reason they do that is because Mann’s we’re-all-gonna-die school of data analysis did immense damage to modeling in general – to the point where large numbers of persons simply dismiss all models as being a crap shoot of bollocks …because, as I heard a radio host say yesterday, they’d seen all the climate alarmist models fail to pan out. That’s on Mann and his chums.”

I think I know which radio host Mark Steyn is talking about. Mark will be guest-hosting that person’s radio show on Monday.

I wouldn’t characterize Rush as a “Coronaskeptic”, though (not that anybody did). His skepticism is aimed at the computer models. Unfortunately, Rush is conflating the fraud incorporated into the surface temperature computer models with the virus computer models, thinking the virus computer models are just as fraudulent as the climate computer models.

Rush ought to sue Mann for misleading him into thinking all computer models are science fiction.

%d bloggers like this: