Mark Steyn files an eviscerating Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann libel suit

Twitter thread from Stephen McIntyre

Mark Steyn has filed an eviscerating and well-informed Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann vanity libel suit. https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf
with memorandum

2/ Steyn, for the most part, stayed out of the complicated SLAAP proceedings, holding his fire for the Summary Judgement phase. I’m not going to review or precis these documents, but will quote a couple of sizzling early paragraphs.

3/ Steyn notes that court previously identified issue as whether Penn State conducted “inadequate and ineffective investigations into their employees, including Sandusky and Mann”. Steyn: “it has been thoroughly adjudicated” and Mann’s mentor “is heading to jail”.

4/ rubbing salt in the open sore, brief says: “while Mann claims he was defamed by Steyn’s linking him with the Sandusky case, in his just-published book The New Climate War, Mann thanks one of the convicted criminals in the Sandusky case.” Ouch.

5/ Steyn observed that Easterling participated in Inquiry Committee activities despite purporting to recuse. Steyn omitted most important example: Easterling intervened to prevent Inquiry Committee from contacting Mann critics and victims

6/ some astounding revelations in Steyn memorandum from discovery on Penn State conduct during investigation. Initial view of Inquiry Committee was that they “could not prove that [Mann was] not guilty” of first 3 counts and therefore would have to proceed to an investigation.

7/ in discovery, Foley said that Inquiry Committee “could not find anything to prove Mann’s innocence” and that, according to pleading, did not “exonerate” Mann.

8/ Steyn says that Foley “secretly” sent a draft of Inquiry Committee report to Penn State President Spanier (who is now a convicted felon in connection with Sandusky scandal) and that Spanier secretly replied to Foley with changes to report.

9/ Spanier then told Foley to be mindful of the impact that “bad publicity” of the Mann case would have on Penn State. Needless to say, in Freeh report on Sandusky case, Spanier’s concern about bad publicity also marred Penn State’s handling of that case.

10/ the brief goes on and on, revealing the failings of the Penn State inquiry and investigation in excruciating detail.

Originally tweeted by Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) on January 24, 2021.

This thread may have had more tweets added since this post was prepared.

Go to the thread on Twitter to see for yourself.

5 31 votes
Article Rating
108 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
January 24, 2021 6:09 am

It certainly appears that corruption ran (still runs?) deep through Penn State, as suggested by the handling of both Sandusky, Easterling, and Mann by University President, among others. I hope Steyn gets all expenses and maybe even some damages (not sure about that), and that Mann gets hit with the hockey stick where it might do some good.

Toto
Reply to  Ron Long
January 24, 2021 10:05 am

corruption ran (still runs?) deep through Penn State,”

Mann still works there. QED.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Ron Long
January 24, 2021 4:05 pm

We call it Pedophile State University.

Buckeyebob
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
January 25, 2021 3:55 am

Or just, “Ped State”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ron Long
January 24, 2021 4:22 pm

In a gutsy move typical of Steyn he countersued for 20 million, locking Mann into the suit. Now if Mann simply withdraws, he faces this suit!! Probably such a withdrawal would reinforce the case of the countersuit.

Steyn gave us some colorful climate change terminology and commentary. He referred to the climate wroughters as “The Clime Syndicate” . Also, at a Senate hearing on climate data integrity, he noted that we have a situation where we know with 95% certainty what the weather will be like in 2100, yet have no idea what the weather ‘will be’ in 1950 – reference the continuing changes being made for that year by a NOAA algorithm.

Brandon Shollenberger
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 25, 2021 11:51 pm

FYI, Steyn’s countersuit was dismissed by the judge some time back.

Vince
Reply to  Ron Long
January 25, 2021 7:23 am

Where does one find the documents of evidence referred to in Steyn’s Motion for Summary Judgement?

Brandon Shollenberger
Reply to  Vince
January 25, 2021 11:53 pm

They currently aren’t available anywhere, but they were attached as exhibits to a filing by Steyn’s lawyers. In a few weeks that filing should be available via the courts electronic records system, at which point anyone should be able to download the filing and attached exhibits.

Vince
Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
January 26, 2021 6:23 am

How does one look at the filings? I have looked and can only find a list of filings up to 2019 but cannot look at them.

Brandon Shollenberger
Reply to  Vince
January 27, 2021 2:48 pm

There’s a website where you can look up information for all DC appellate cases, including viewing all filings. It’s pretty nice. And fortunately, it seems to be updated faster than I expected. All of the filings associated with this motion are already online. You can go here and do a search for the case:

https://eaccess.dccourts.gov/eaccess/

The case docket has all filings. As a word of caution, the exhibits are a bit cumbersome to download as they are split across a dozen or so files, apparently because of file size. Still, they all seem to be there, available for anyone to view. There are hundreds of pages of deposition in them which have never been published before, so there’s lot of material to look through.

Jeremy Poynton
January 24, 2021 6:16 am

URL for PDF broken.

[fixed cr]

yirgach
Reply to  Jeremy Poynton
January 24, 2021 6:26 am

You have to remove the “}” at the end of the URL:
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf

[fixed cr]

Kpar
January 24, 2021 6:17 am

Looks pretty comprehensive to this non-lawyer. Too bad we do not have “loser pays” in this country.

commieBob
Reply to  Kpar
January 24, 2021 8:31 am

I followed Groklaw while it was active. If I learned one thing it is that filings that look amazing often fail and filings that look like complete crap often succeed. In the end, the good guys won but the bad guys were able to drag the proceedings out for long enough to do serious damage all round.

Larry in Texas
Reply to  commieBob
January 24, 2021 11:53 am

Bob, what you are saying is generally true with motions for summary judgment, IF (and that’s always a big IF) there is in fact at least one material fact issue (or one major issue of law) necessary to the case that remains in dispute. That depends upon the judge, of course. My lawyer’s look at this tells me there is far more than enough undisputed proof, as a matter of law (which is the second required prong of every summary judgment to be granted), to find that Steyn committed no libel and to entitle Steyn to a summary judgment, even if there may still be a dispute about exactly how the Inquiry Committee reached its conclusions. All these other “issues” are extraneous, because the very process of the Inquiry Committee was compromised from the beginning. And yet, even with the rigged process, they couldn’t exactly “exonerate” Mann themselves, could they?

commieBob
Reply to  Larry in Texas
January 24, 2021 12:31 pm

I wonder if Mann will even fight this. What are the consequences to him if he lets it drop? If it goes to trial, he has to testify and face cross examination, and presumably produce discovery.

In the Ball case, Mann delayed things until the judge pitched the case out because of inexcusable delays. Mann then proceeded to claim victory. He’s also refusing to pay court ordered costs.

My favorite legal theory is that, by avoiding testimony and discovery, Mann has exposed himself to adverse inference. It sounds to me like he’s tacitly admitted that he does indeed belong in state pen.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
January 24, 2021 4:03 pm

At what point does asset seizure start to come into play?

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
January 24, 2021 5:06 pm

My understanding is that the court in British Columbia (Canadian province not quite as bad as California) can’t touch him unless he sets foot in that province.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  commieBob
January 24, 2021 4:33 pm

Bob, you seem unaware that Steyn countersued for 20 million. This gutsy move locked Mann in. Dropping the case wouldn’t dismiss the countersuit. Indeed it might be what is stopping Mann from dropping it. He has financial backing from a climateer legal fund but that fund may not have anticipated a hit like that.

ATheoK
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 24, 2021 5:40 pm

He has financial backing from a climateer legal fund”

Mann has received millions in financial and legal support for his false legal actions.

Mann is liable for Federal and state taxes for those funds.

Given the tax rates for a million dollars, I doubt Mann has earned enough money from State Penn to pay those taxes.

I suspect that the climateer legal fund might’ve paid Mann’s Federal and state tax bill.
An action that makes it appear that Mann’s tax bill has been paid.

Only, the reality is that Mann received the benefits of all that money yet hasn’t paid one dime to the Federal Government or Pennsylvania.

The Federal Government has a tips hotline and they pay a percentage of what a tax avoider owes.

Tim Ball and Mark Steyn should both report Mann to the IRS.

Then they should seek financial redress injunctions against Mann’s finances, funds, real property and retirement.
Hopefully, before the Feds catch Mann and chain up everything Mann owns.

James Beaver
Reply to  ATheoK
January 25, 2021 12:00 pm

U.S. IRS only goes after non-Leftist tax dodgers. As Mikey Mann’s Mann-Made warming “theory” enables Leftist politician’s power grabs, he’s safe ftom the IRS.

Darrin
Reply to  ATheoK
January 27, 2021 6:44 am

I don’t know how the tax laws work but I do know a person can be given funds and at the same time the company doing the giving can pay taxes on those funds. How do I know? I’ve been involved in company paid relocations. In one case I was on the hook for 100% of the taxes due to the extra income from paid relocation (I didn’t know any better and got a huge, unexpected tax bill). After that I’ve made sure the company calculates the taxes owed for the relocation and pays those taxes, no extra out of pocket tax bill on my part. The extra income and taxes showed on my W-2 at the end of the year.

It’s no stretch of the imagination that if the company I work for can do that for me Mikey Mann would have the same deal going for him.

commieBob
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 24, 2021 5:51 pm

As far as I can tell, the countersuit is dead. link

BallBounces
Reply to  commieBob
January 25, 2021 5:28 am

Steyn filed a counter-suit, so it doesn’t end if Mann drops it.

commieBob
Reply to  BallBounces
January 25, 2021 6:01 pm

I provided a link to the judgement that I think killed it. Was I wrong about that?

Joe the non climate expert
Reply to  commieBob
January 26, 2021 9:12 am

Yes Mann will fight – As is common in litigation, Steyn’s attorney called Mann’s attorney to discuss the filing and resolution. Mann’s attorney declined any settlement during the phone call.

Enginer01
January 24, 2021 6:25 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied#:~:text=“Justice%20delayed%20is%20justice%20denied,having%20no%20remedy%20at%20all.

January 24, 2021 6:35 am

This whole matter has cost Mann nothing of course….there are left wing law firms who work for nothing or are compensated by some charitable trust or fund. It is just part of the ongoing war….aimed at shutting up people like Mark Steyn…and warning others to shut up.

Scissor
Reply to  Anti_griff
January 24, 2021 7:24 am

It’s not over of course.

Jerry Sandusky is in prison. Joe Paterno died in disgrace. Mann lives the life of a dishonest scientist but many people know his deception and he knows it. He may continue to get away with it and actually benefit financially from his lies, but at the very least the Steyn suit shines light on him.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Scissor
January 24, 2021 7:34 am

“. . . at the very least the Steyn suit shines light on him.”

Not so much when he merits life under a rock.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gordon A. Dressler
ATheoK
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 24, 2021 5:43 pm

A semblance of life deep in anaerobic mud under a lump of high sulfur coal rock in a stagnant cesspool swamp.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Scissor
January 24, 2021 9:59 am

Mann just recently won another award, the Tyler prize, from one of the clueless, and not fully honest “scientific societies”. There is rot throughout these organizations.

pouncer
Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 25, 2021 2:50 pm

The whole point of a libel (or slander) action is that the victim has suffered a loss of reputation. The undisputed fact that Mann has won awards (grants, promotions, book contracts, etc) despite NRO CEI Simberg and Steyn indicates their opinions and publications have NOT damaged him or caused any loss. His reputation — as a fighter and leader of the “cause”, at least — has if anything improved.

Which I think sad, but there we are.

James Donald Bailey
Reply to  Anti_griff
January 24, 2021 7:41 am

Well, it isn’t costing Mann money, but it is costing him his reputation. Steyn has just destroyed the Penn State investigation into Mann.

BallBounces
Reply to  James Donald Bailey
January 25, 2021 5:26 am

It won’t be reported.

TonyG
Reply to  James Donald Bailey
January 25, 2021 9:24 am

Where, exactly, is it costing Mann reputation? He has none in skeptic circles already, and I don’t see any loss of “credibility” among the true believers.

Richard Page
Reply to  Anti_griff
January 24, 2021 10:19 am

As long as Mann can characterise these actions as ‘defending himself and the science against deniers’ then he’ll keep getting money for it. Hopefully this case will be a step towards getting rid of that ridiculous fiction once and for all.

Tom Halla
January 24, 2021 6:40 am

The atrocity is that Mann has been able to drag the case out for so long.

Giordano Milton
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 24, 2021 7:32 am

And another atrocity would seem to be the fact he still gets research money.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Giordano Milton
January 24, 2021 10:00 am

You know, NSF solicitation all contain the statement that NSF will not tolerate academic misconduct … yet they do.

Joe the non climate expert
Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 26, 2021 9:19 am

“You know, NSF solicitation all contain the statement that NSF will not tolerate academic misconduct … yet they do.”

Maybe not – The NSF policy on misconduct only covers studies that the NSF funded. MHB 98 was prior to any funding from the NSF so, the NSF inquiry did not cover MHB 98.

The other point on the NSF memorandum report was that they acknowledged that the stats used were subject to scientific debate. (basically acknowledging that there was controversy which they could not resolve

Antonym
January 24, 2021 6:40 am

I left Twitter but now follow Stephen McIntyre though his link in Climate audit.
What will be his next platform?

Will Pennsylvania show that it can judge facts on merits over power pushing this round?

The Scottish parliament just did: http://web.archive.org/web/20210122213515/https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/22/scottish-parliament-orders-prosecutors-to-release-salmond-leak-evidence

Scissor
Reply to  Antonym
January 24, 2021 7:28 am

Pennsylvania’s misfortune is a mess of corruption. I feel sorry for the good people there, but we all suffer from the resulting wretchedness.

January 24, 2021 7:11 am

Every time Penn State calls me for a donation, I ask, “Is Mann still working there?”

Craytron
Reply to  John Shewchuk
January 24, 2021 1:46 pm

They are still asking for donations?

JaKo
January 24, 2021 7:12 am

About Summary Judgments:
Why should “we” stop at the Penn State? Wasn’t Dr. Mann instated into NAS?
The whole business of “Science for Hire” including appropriately skewed conclusions are beyond reproach…

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  JaKo
January 24, 2021 7:33 am

A few years ago, the American Meteorological Society instituted a policy where Fellowship in the Society could be revoked if a member could be shown to have engaged in unethical behavior. It was meant for those accused of sexual harassment, but I urged the Heartland Institute to bring a complaint about Peter Gleich. He had publicly confessed to committing wire fraud against them. Unfortunately, they never followed up. Gleich continues to receive good press and his misdeeds are buried. Taking away his Fellowship would be a stain he could not hide.
We should take what actions we can to rip away their masks of rectitude.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
January 24, 2021 9:23 am

Great! . . . Michael Mann became a Fellow in the American Meteorological Society in 2013.

Let’s see if the AMS actually enforces its claimed ethical standards.

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
January 24, 2021 4:04 pm

The only reason why progressives adopt rules of any kind is so that they can be used against those who oppose progressives. The rules are never, ever, used against the progressives themselves.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  JaKo
January 24, 2021 10:05 am

Richard Feynman refused becoming a member of NAS as I recall because he said there was no point becoming a member of a society whose main function was solely deciding who was august enough to be a member.

Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 24, 2021 11:05 am

AFAIK I was the only person outraged enough to write a post on that:

https://cliscep.com/2020/04/30/hows-a-mann-get-into-the-nas/

Pariah Dog
Reply to  Kevin kilty
January 24, 2021 1:01 pm

Reminds me of… https://youtu.be/LFrdqQZ8FFc

Gordon A. Dressler
January 24, 2021 7:29 am

Of course, most of the detailed, factual information cited in the above-provided Steyn motion for Summary Judgement was well known and readily accessible to the general public well prior to April 2020 (yes, less than one year ago), when the National Academy of Sciences elected the same Michael Mann to its membership.

This reflects on the ethical standards of NAS . . . assuming that they have any at all.

Giordano Milton
January 24, 2021 7:31 am

Is this the same Michael Mann who was at the center of the Climate Gate scheme that seemed intent on suppressing open scientific discussion?

Has he still refused open access to all of his famous tree ring data? Why?

Did he receive government money while gathering and analyzing the tree ring data? If so, that data is not his own personal property. Previously, I did research that was government funded (different area), and access to all the data for which the government paid was mandatory.

Who is paying for these endless lawsuits?

How is this guy still receiving funding?

Kpar
Reply to  Giordano Milton
January 24, 2021 7:54 am

The dog ate his homework.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Giordano Milton
January 24, 2021 10:24 am

If the data and other supporting material used in the paper are not open access, as per scientific method, the paper is meaningless. It must be made available so that anyone can attempt repetition or falsification.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 25, 2021 7:08 am

Well, that would be, you know, ACTUAL science. As opposed to “climate science,” where we’re just supposed to “believe in science” propagated by the “Team.”

Rory Forbes
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 25, 2021 9:21 am

Mann’s excuse was something along the line of; “If I make my process and data available, anyone can look at it and criticize it. Why should I put up with that? What do they know?”

Brandon Shollenberger
Reply to  Giordano Milton
January 25, 2021 11:55 pm

The tree ring data Mann used for his (in)famous hockey stick paper has been freely available ofr over 15 years now. Mann has stonewalled requests for some things, but never that.

Bob Hoye
January 24, 2021 7:48 am

Outstanding case and review.

Ed Zuiderwijk
January 24, 2021 8:02 am

Mann, distinguished professor of tiddlywinks. Distinguished indeed.

Deguello
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 24, 2021 5:36 pm

Michael “Piltdown” Mann

pouncer
January 24, 2021 8:14 am

Opening paragraph “[Steyn is entitled to judgement as a matter of law”. Can he then, as prevailing party, ask for reimbursement of court costs?

Does this moot Steyn’s counter-suit again Mann?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  pouncer
January 24, 2021 8:26 am

Answers: yes, and no. From a Harvard trained lawyer.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 24, 2021 9:35 am

Rud,
Is there any kind of religious discrimination lawsuit possible against climate alarmists? Their anti-human beliefs are a de facto religion and should never be promulgated in our schools one would think! Mann’s whole campaign should really be seen as a war against those he sees as heretics and non-believers!

JoHo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 24, 2021 10:41 am

Is it not possible to bring a (possibly crowd funded) Class Action against the University of East Anglia cabal who, it appears, with Mann, deliberately altered data to start off all these shenanigans and the creation of the much discredited Hockey Stick, and, ultimately, has cost the ‘World’ billions in chasing fairy dust?

Gary K Hoffman
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 24, 2021 2:46 pm

From a Harvard trained lawyer.” We believe you anyway.

Coach Springer
January 24, 2021 8:36 am

It’s just the motion, but on a scale similar to glacial movement, this is big. Looking back to the beginning of this and feeling old.

As Steyn said, the process is the punishment, so hooray, the process winds slowly to a possible end. Freedom of speech wins a round in a battle while Facebook and Twitter rev up their science censors.

January 24, 2021 8:53 am

Excellent. But will the Judge understand any of it, or are the establishment now bought by the climate change conspiracy, with so much easy money to be taken from us in green subsidies and carbon credits they are awarding themselves and using to buy compliance with the religion that keeps on giving. To them..

This fraud, carefully created over decades by the UN, has reached the democratic politicians multi $Billion pay days Maurice Strong and Al Gore et al promised them, at our expense. They plan to impose expensive inadequate energy generation that can’t meet even current needs in engineering fact and at huge additional cost. All imposed in the name of climate change, that can’t change anything because CO2 is such a small effect within the overall lapse rate components, and more so while the West rations its self imposed expensive feudal enrgy sources, because the fossil fuel will be being burnt at a much greater rate than the West ever used it by Asians, to make them richer and hence more powerful than the WEst/ Their development needn’t be at our expense, we can all prosper, but that’s how China wants it for sure, why they offered sanctuary to the criminal Strong when he was caught with his hand in the UN till. Ok, it was only small change at a stolen $1M, but follow the money, the $Billions spent creating and promoting the fake science that CO2 causes climate change, that is simply not a significant effect in science fact.

THe elitees want their pay day before reality dawns on the lumpen proletariat they deceived with fake science they knew the proles would prefer be scared by in their insignificance, and want to “do something”, rather than check whether the threat was real and the solution effective, in science fact. Far too much thinking required. Easy sting.

The aim of the UN IPCC always was, and remains, to enrich Asia while crippling Western economies with rationed overpriced energy, that also makes lots of money for the Elite traitors to their societies, who pass overtly regressive energy laws to impoverish us and enrich themselves using climate change as justification, at the expense of our kids economic, not climate, futures, having already shipped the jobs that used the energy to these countries to make more money for themselves, all at public expense, now they enforce expensive rationed energy across society so we cannot compete..

The green deal is to put a lot more green in their pockets while they return you to mediaeval energy sources and feudal societies in the next renewable energy step, so they again control all the wealth, leaving only the few low skilled gig economy jobs left at home. The flattening. Do the arithmetic.

I never liked Trump, but he sure had this racket nailed. How politicians get rich and hold power over the people they exploit by law, with your money. This is the American Democracy they reckon they just saved. Really? For whom? A bunch of greedy, lying, self serving snake oil salesmen, not for the people. Just sayin’

PS Is that sales persons, for diversity purposes?

Abolition Man
Reply to  Brian R Catt
January 24, 2021 9:44 am

Brian,
The UN goal of enriching Asia, China in particular, is just a stepping stone to their goal of a massive reduction in human population. Not even the corruptocrats that fill that body of crooks would be willing to kill off such large swathes of their peons; got to have some to bow and scrape you know. Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates are the leaders of that push; Michael Mann is just another useful idiot that isn’t hoping to win a seat on the survival train!

beng135
January 24, 2021 8:54 am

Doubt that it will be paid any attention to by the corrupt DC court system, especially now. In fact the “judge” will prb’ly bare-down on Steyn.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  beng135
January 24, 2021 12:09 pm

The judge should really keep his or her clothes on.

Gary K Hoffman
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 24, 2021 2:48 pm

Who knows what he has on under that robe (if anything).

Just Jenn
January 24, 2021 8:58 am

Good.

I hope it gains merit and succeeds.

Mann and his ilk have spent too much time on cancel culture.

Wade
January 24, 2021 9:26 am

Of course, this last presidential election showed that the US courts do not care about evidence. This means that even if Mark Steyn’s case is air-tight, he can still lose.

DMacKenzie
January 24, 2021 9:51 am

Climate Cancel culture must be in turmoil now that a few people like Steyn are fighting their easy-to-claim-but-costly-to-fight legal nonsense in court…even though the legal system mostly seems to think it is all just a frivolous way to keep lawyers rolling in fees.

Kevin kilty
January 24, 2021 9:54 am

Amazing. I hope we can put an end to this utterly absurd affair. But reading about Spanier urging that the reputation of the University be considered, reminds me of my time as an elected official dealing with similar issues. Wrong-doing by the public institution I was to “oversee” was often buried by offices within the institution, like PR, for fear of the college’s reputation — that truth would hurt our ability to raise money through bonds and so forth. My counterargument was that everyone in the school’s service area already knew most of the college’s perfidy in a number of matters, and that a public mess is cleaned-up most honestly and credibly in the full light of disclosure.

ResourceGuy
January 24, 2021 11:21 am

Has NSF funded any more climate theater productions lately?

ResourceGuy
January 24, 2021 11:31 am

Penn State has more opinion than science and it’s not limited to Mann. The land grant schools were infected long ago because there were jobs there for those who couldn’t make it in real research. Pub mill promotions made that viable for them. All you need is a model and it doesn’t matter what’s in it.

knr
January 24, 2021 11:32 am

I still wonder what the colour the bus will be Mann’s ‘friends ‘ will throw him under to save themselves. While climate ‘science ‘ seems to cover a wide area , you can say its leaders seems to share some basic elements no matter their field , that is a massive ego and a very thin skin. Still when you don’t actually have to do any hard science and can play ‘heads you lose tails I win ‘ in your research it does leave time to stroke your own ego.

Editor
January 24, 2021 11:34 am

And to think, Mann was just elected to the National Academy of Sciences. They are going to be tarnished also.

TonyG
Reply to  Andy May
January 25, 2021 9:32 am

How so?

From what I can see, nobody really seems to care. Reputations are already “tarnished” in the eyes of skeptics, and the rest only see this as illegitimate “smear tactics”. Where do they lose any credibility?

rah
January 24, 2021 11:50 am

Thanks for the great report. I really hope it turns the case, but I really don’t a much faith in our Federal Courts anymore despite the efforts of Trump.

Larry in Texas
January 24, 2021 11:58 am

I want to thank Steve McIntyre for his tireless efforts to expose the lies (and the liars) behind this so-called “climate movement.” Even as we now see Sleepy, Senile Old Joe Biden exercising naked power to advance the fraudulent agenda of the climate catastrophists, Biden may have the power, but he does not have the right.

Ghowe
Reply to  Larry in Texas
January 26, 2021 2:54 am

I’ll second that motion, LiT. Mr McIntyre should be nominated and awarded his country’s highest civilian honor for his diligent pursuits and explanations in his blog. He was an early adopter of using a blog for “citizen science”. Another great unassuming fella from Canada eh. I have stop being surprised by the number of Exceptionals I have met that hail from the great white north.

January 24, 2021 12:20 pm

I fear that Mark Steyn may be walking into trap by bringing up Mann’s inclusion of Graham Spanier in the acknowledgements of his latest book. The Sandusky case was an emotional moral panic that created an unchallengeable narrative.

Yet, a challenge has come from an astounding amount of investigative work done by podcaster, documentary film maker, former radio talk show host and senior Mediaite columnist, John Ziegler. He thought Paterno was getting a bad rap and interviewed almost everybody related to this case and concluded that, as unbelievable as it sounds, Jerry Sandusky was innocent! He’s pursued this toxic story only to get beaten back time and time again. Along the way he’s picked up an impressive list of converts:

  • Acclaimed science writer, Mark Pendergrast, wrote a book, The Most Hated Man in America: Jerry Sandusky and the Rush to Judgement. It got no media attention except for a review by an academic friend of Pendergrast at Michael Shermer’s skeptic.com web site. His board balked at publishing it in the magazine.
  • Former Federal Investigative Services agent, John Snedden, who did an investigation of whether Graham Spanier should have his top secret security clearance renewed. He found no evidence of a coverup or of any crime that needed to be covered up. Spanier’s security clearance was renewed.
  • Memory expert, Elizabeth Loftus, testified at a hearing for Sandusky.
  • Prominent author, Malcolm Gladwell, included a chapter about the boy in the shower in his latest best selling book, Talking to Strangers.
  • Prominent social psychologist, Carol Tavris, wrote a review of Talking to Strangers for the Wall Street Journal and chided Gladwell for avoiding obvious conclusions.
  • Former Newsweek editor Bob Roe, worked on similar cases and planned a major Newsweek feature, but was fired on separate matter involving Newsweek’s parent company.
  • Reporter Ralph Cipriano, worked on similar cases and with Ziegler on the ill-fated Newsweek feature which was killed at last moment.

Ziegler has also been interviewed about the case by many prominent figures:

  • Glen Beck
  • Adam Corolla
  • Thaddeus Russell

He’s about to come out with a new podcast series and a documentary. If he’s finally successful in getting this story into the main stream, Mann will have something to crow about by including Spanier in his acknowledgements and may be able to overshadow any success Steyn has in the courtrooms. I think Steyn should write about this and beat Mann to the punch.

Gary K Hoffman
Reply to  Mike Dombroski
January 24, 2021 2:51 pm

If Spanier is vindicated, then Mann could not possibly have been defamed by association to him.

Reply to  Gary K Hoffman
January 24, 2021 3:43 pm

I think you mean Rand Simberg’s statement that Mann is the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. I tweeted to Rand Simberg that he owes Jerry Sandusky an apology and he retweeted it:

https://twitter.com/DombroskiMike/status/1083683829091569664

stinkerp
Reply to  Mike Dombroski
January 24, 2021 6:46 pm

Interesting. Difficult to address in a short comment, sorry.

tldr;

I’ve seen several high-profile cases of sexual molestation, both child and adult, dismissed or reversed as more careful critical analysis exposed the fact that the “evidence” was coerced and that additional witnesses either lied or “remembered” their allegations incorrectly based on careful examination. I have never cared about the Sandusky case enough to follow it. I instinctively thought that others who got dragged along like Joe Paterno were wrongly blamed. Pedophilia invokes strong emotional reactions in people, sabotaging attempts to view the facts carefully and rationally.

I had a read through Ziegler’s posts, which are pretty compelling about the dearth of evidence presented at trial for this specific case and the apparent witch-hunt fervor that gripped the prosecutors, the Penn State community, and the media. Ziegler doesn’t disprove all the other allegations of pedophilic behavior against Sandusky, and added up they suggest that even if they wrongly prosecuted Sandusky in this case, he has a known history of misconduct with young boys that was ignored for years. This profile of Ziegler counterbalances his apparently sincere effort to identify prosecutorial misconduct:

https://jeffpearlman.com/2015/03/04/on-matt-sandusky-and-the-worst-guy-ive-ever-dealt-with/

I feel sorry for people with pedophilia. Pedophilia, like all paraphilias, describes the impulses, not necessarily the behavior. Unlike other forms of sexual deviancy that have been normalized in many Western societies, pedophilia is especially fraught with moral outrage because the targets are children. Those who act out their impulses, knowing without any doubt it is illegal and reprehensible, should be prosecuted and punished. There are many pedophiles, however, who never act on their impulses and are disturbed that they even have them, but, according to a wealth of research, neither can they just make them go away. On their own or with therapy, they learn to ignore the feelings or find ways to divert themselves during moments when the thoughts or impulses are difficult to ignore. Psychologists call it cognitive behavioral therapy. It’s really just self-discipline, a concept at least as old as the Bible.

Being animals with highly evolved brains, we all encounter bizarre thoughts that wander in uninvited, sometimes repeatedly. There is no shame in that though they (should) make us uncomfortable. Sexual thoughts are especially volatile because they evoke strong physiological responses in us. It is the conscious effort to dismiss them, rather than entertain them and act on them, that distinguishes the moral from the immoral, the mature from the immature, the criminal from the law-abiding. Those who learn to override the impulses are heroes. Those who struggle deserve our sympathy. Those who fail…? Consequences commensurate with their actions and therapy if they are willing. If there are victims of their failure, the victims deserve our unwavering sympathy and support.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  stinkerp
January 25, 2021 10:10 am

stinkerp,
A very well though out, rational, and balanced response. We need more of this in the world, and less temper tantrums from emotionally stunted adults.

Reply to  stinkerp
January 25, 2021 11:30 am

Thanks for responding. You state that Sandusky “has a known history of misconduct with young boys that was ignored for years.” This looks to me like it consists of the single case of eleven year old Zachary Konstas in 1998, where Sandusky lifted him up to rinse his hair. This case was actually investigated by police pretty thoroughly. Detectives hid in closets and listened to conversations between Sandusky and Konstas’ mother. AFAIK there are only two other reports of Sandusky showering with kids. There’s the case of the janitor who saw a man perform oral sex on a boy. That janitor did not testify because the prosecutors claimed he had dementia. But he did do a taped interview with police where he said repeatedly that the man he saw was not Sandusky. Sandusky’s over worked lawyer did not use this tape and may not have even had time to listen to it, though he did have a copy.

The other case was the boy that assistant coach Mike McQueary saw in the shower with Sandusky. One prosecutor said in the closing statements that his identity was known only to God, but it is well established that his name was Allen Myers. He was a 2cnd Mile kid who had lived with the Sanduskys. He wrote letters to the editors of newspapers defending Sandusky (as a sergeant in the marines) and made a sworn statement to the prosecutors. His mother had worked for a lawyer named Andrew Shuben who ended up getting multi million dollar settlements for several accusers, including Myers. Myers went to Sandusky’s lawyers to offer support and then disappeared. He was later subpoenaed for an appeal hearing where he gave evasive testimony.

The chapter in Malcolm Gladwell’s book is about how John Ziegler found evidence that Mike McQueary waited over a month before reporting the incident to Paterno at a time that a coaching position had just opened up.

It should also be noted that Sandusky was by all accounts a square religious person. He grew up in a rec center with communal showers. He was definitely a touchy feely person. He’s from an older time. There used to be a popular bumper sticker that read, “Have You Hugged Your Kid Today?”

We can never know exactly what someone’s thoughts are and we don’t prosecute them for having them. Sandusky had low testosterone, which is why he had to adopt children. Medical records also show that he had hypogonadism (small to nonexistent testes) which no accuser reported.

John Ziegler is a podcaster and documentary film maker, so he has the story remarkably well documented. There are scores of people who have contacted him about accusers. Him and reporter, Ralph Cipriano where leaked all of the settlement documents. They show many to be blatant scams. AFAIK every accuser got a settlement.

Reply to  stinkerp
January 25, 2021 12:24 pm

Thanks for the link. I’d not seen that one. I don’t find his defense of Matt Sandusky very convincing. There’s a lot of other details he’s missed. For example, Ziegler got arrested just for showing up at an event where Matt Sandusky was speaking. Ziegler had a ticket in his own name. It’s on video!

Yes Ziegler is boisterous and takes potshots at everyone, including me. I may disagree with some of his premises once in a while, but he always has a logical argument for what he does. On the Sandusky case, he’s amassed mountains of evidence. He’s also had some recent good calls. He was the first media figure to call out the Jussie Smollett hoax and I haven’t seen anyone anticipate the election results and its aftermath better than him. He’s the most principled media figure I’ve ever seen.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Mike Dombroski
January 25, 2021 9:33 am

I think Steyn should look into the research that suggests that Sandusky was actually innocent. If there is any merit to the argument, then Stein could follow up with a retraction of his comparison of Mann to Sandusky.

“Sorry, I had compared Michael Mann to Jerry Sandusky. Recent evidence suggests that Jerry Sandusky may actually be innocent so my comparison turns out to be flawed. My bad.”

Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
January 25, 2021 12:29 pm

That was actually Rand Simberg of CEI who called Michael Mann the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. Simberg and CEI are also being sued by Mann.

January 24, 2021 12:28 pm

cove. n. A fellow; a man. Chiefly British.

kazinski
January 24, 2021 12:40 pm

Discovery is a bitch.

kim
Reply to  kazinski
January 24, 2021 3:51 pm

What is going on here?
===================

fretslider
January 24, 2021 1:22 pm

State Pen sounds about right

Mickey Reno
January 24, 2021 3:16 pm

This case has been a travesty from the very beginning (to borrow a handy word from CO2 alarmist Kevin Trenberth). I hope some judge finally twigs to the SLAPP nature of Mann’s lawsuit and slams his ass to the ground as happened to Mann’s nuisance lawsuit against Tim Ball, and awards Mark Steyn some big damages as well as costs. But I hoped Trump would win the election, too. My wishes are not coming true, lately.

Pat from kerbob
January 24, 2021 7:13 pm

As a non-scientist but extremely pissed off observer, I can state that Mann gets paraded as an authority by the climate scientologists.
Mann needs to go down a peg but more importantly needs to be seen doing so.

He needs a public thrashing like any bully

Killer Marmot
January 24, 2021 7:47 pm

Wow, this case is just steaming right along. I look forward to hearing from Steyn’s and Mann’s grandchildren as they argue the case twenty years from now.

Coeur de Lion
January 25, 2021 6:02 am

Our alarmist BBC further smeared the reputation of the beloved but unscientific Attenborough by parading Mann alongside him in a dreadful tv doc called ‘climate change the facts’ which attracted multiple complaints because of dishonesty. Became known as ‘Climate. Change the Facts’

PWatkins
January 25, 2021 7:38 pm

Legal Professional here. Calm yourselves and wait for the outcome. Are you professionals or not?

Brandon Shollenberger
January 26, 2021 12:05 am

I wish this comment had been a bit more timely, but I would advise great caution when it comes to getting one’s hopes up about this motion. If Mann’s lawyers are remotely competent, this motion will fail. It will fail because it is horrendously flawed. It has numerous errors, misrepresentations and outright falsehoods.

Some of the problems are just bizarre. For instance, the motion to dismiss provides numerous quotations while citing a motion of (supposedly) undisputed facts. However, the quotations in the cited filing often differ from the ones in the motion to dismiss. I doubt the judge would appreciate misquotations in general, but I’m sure he’d find it bizarre someone would cite their own document for quotations while providing different versions of those quotations.

There are much bigger problems though. One which really jumps out at me is Steyn’s motion claims to provide a quote which shows Mann cherry-picked data because an e-mail of his said he eliminated records with negative correlations. However, the infamous NOAMER PC1, the key proxy for Mann’s hockey stick reconstruction, had a negative correlation. This makes Steyn’s claim impossible. As it turns out, Mann’s e-mail was about an entirely different study, but for some reason, Steyn’s filing portrays it as being about the (in)famous hockey stick study.

If Mann’s lawyers are remotely competent, Steyn will lose this motion, and he will lose it because he (or his lawyers) did a terrible job of crafting it. The best thing anyone could do to support Steyn in this legal battle would be to sit him down and explain to him the importance of getting basic facts correct.

Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
January 26, 2021 10:43 am

The NOAMER PC! proxy having a negative hockey stick is a rather arcane point that Mann’s lawyers are unlikely to notice unless Mann points it out to them and I don’t think anyone would expect Steyn to be aware of this specific detail.

I don’t think PC1 being upside down is necessarily a negative result. If Mann’s method does not distinguish between positive and negative hockey sticks, then finding any hockey stick is a positive result.

Reply to  Brandon Shollenberger
January 26, 2021 10:50 am

Steyn’s lawyers could also argue that Mann’s method not distinguishing between up and down hockey sticks was a form of cherry picking/pruning against negative results.

Brandon Shollenberger
Reply to  Mike Dombroski
January 27, 2021 1:57 pm

Knowing that NOAMER PC1 has a negative correlation is in no way important. The more important point is the quotation Steyn relies on was about an entirely different piece of work, having nothing to do with the MBH hockey stick. I only brought up NOAMER PC1’s correlation because it’s direct proof what Steyn’s filing says is false. Even if Mann’s lawyers don’t notice the same factoid I noticed, they should certainly know what Steyn’s filing says is false. I’m sure Mann would know if they asked him.

As for claiming not filtering negatively oriented hockey sticks is a form of cherry-picking, that would be a weird argument to make as the orientation of principal components, by definition, has no meaning. 😛

So again, if you want a judge to dismiss a lawsuit because there are no material facts under dispute, you shouldn’t state things as fact that are patently untrue. A good motion for summary judgment could have been written, but by writing such a terrible one, Steyn and his lawyers sabotaged their own case. This motion will likely fail, and if so, it will fail because Steyn and his lawyers were utterly incompetent.

%d bloggers like this: