From The Manhattan Contrarian.
In my last post a couple of days ago, I referred to the defamation lawsuit brought by Michael Mann against Mark Steyn as an example of abusive litigation seeking to use the expense of the legal process to suppress public debate on an important subject. The lawsuit was originally brought in October 2012. Other defendants in the case include National Review (where Steyn published the blog post that is the subject of the lawsuit), Competitive Enterprise Insititute (which published another blog post which Steyn used as a basis for his own post) and Rand Simberg (author of the CEI blog post).
The tortured history of this case very well illustrates the difficulty of trying to strike a good balance between, on the one hand, having libel law as a mechanism for people to defend themselves against false statements that could ruin their reputations and, on the other hand, having a wildly expensive litigation process that can be wielded as a weapon by the powerful to threaten to bankrupt political opponents and thereby silence debate on important topics of public interest.
To refresh your recollection, here is the key quote from the Steyn 2012 blog post that Mann claims was defamatory:
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing. If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
Mann’s central allegation in his case against Steyn is that this passage is defamatory because the “hockey stick” graph is not “fraudulent”; and therefore Steyn’s statement that the graph is “fraudulent” is false.
Remarkably, eight and a half years into this case, only now is the truth or falsity of the claim that the “hockey stick” graph is fraudulent being addressed. The issue was finally raised in a motion for summary judgement filed by Steyn on January 22 — although almost as an aside, in a motion dealing with many other issues; and then the issue was much more squarely addressed in a response by Steyn to a motion for summary judgment by Mann, filed by Steyn on March 3. I have been sent a copy of the March 3 filing, but I have not been able to find a link for it online.
The Steyn motion papers point to three ways in which the Hockey Stick graph is fraudulent. Of the three, the most compelling is the deletion by Mann of certain adverse data that would have destroyed the neat “hockey stick” shape of the graph. The graph shows a reconstruction of world atmospheric temperatures from about the year 1050 to 2000, where the first 900 years have temperatures flat or slightly declining, followed by a sharp upward move in the last 50 or so years. The 900 year flat period was derived from several collections of data from tree rings, one of which was provided by a Mann colleague named Keith Briffa. However, in the most recent years (post-1960) the Briffa series showed a decline in temperatures — an inconvenient fact that would have greatly undermined the intended visual impact of the graphic. Mann then decided simply to delete the portion of the Briffa data post-1960, while still using the rest. From the Steyn March 3 submission:
The [Hockey Stick graph as published in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001, in a portion written by lead author Mann] omitted tree ring proxy data collected by climate scientist Keith Briffa that showed a decline in temperatures after 1960, a message inconsistent with the prized hockey stick shape. . . . The IPCC TAR did not disclose the deletion of this data. . . . As lead author, Mann decided to omit the Briffa data without the input of his other lead authors.. . . Mann’s own collaborators cautioned him against the deletion. IPCC TAR Coordinating Lead Author Chris Folland wrote to Mann that Briffa’s data “contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly.”. . . Briffa himself urged Mann not to succumb to “pressure to present a nice tidy story” by “ignor[ing]” his post-1960 results. . . . Mann agreed with them on the merits but bemoaned the data’s political impact: “[I]f we show Keith’s series . . . skeptics [will] have a field day.” . . . To prevent a “skeptics’ field day,” he chose to delete the data.
One would think that this is about as clear a demonstration of scientific fraud as it is possible to have. And as indicated, this is just one of three instances of fraud in the Hockey Stick graph that are set forth in detail in Steyn’s March 3 submission. The other two involve: (1) “cherry picking” of data, in the selection of proxy data series to show a flat-to-declining temperature trend from 1050 to 1950, by simply omitting to use any of the many available series that show the existence of a “medieval warm period” warmer than the present, and (2) misinterpreting one series to use the results upside down and then, when the error was pointed out, continuing to use the series in that way because it supported the desired visual presentation.
Anyway, Mann gets to throw at least one more brief into this mix, and then we will await the court’s decision. As clear-cut as this may appear from the excerpt I provided, the court’s decision could well not come out until late in the year. If summary judgment is denied, there will then be a trial. Another possibility is that the court grants summary judgment to Mann as plaintiff. I find that possibility almost too ridiculous to contemplate, but the fact is that when things get as politicized as the “climate change” thing has become, the human mind loses almost all rational capability.
And then there is one more question: Where has this case been for the last eight years? The answer is that National Review and CEI (but not Steyn) tried to get it dismissed under the District of Columbia “anti-SLAPP” statute. (“SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.). Readers may be interested in learning what this is and how it could sidetrack a case like this for so long, without ever resolving anything.
Anti-SLAPP statutes are a state-level response to perceived misuse of libel litigation by the powerful to suppress public debate. Twenty-eight states have them, including all the big states; plus of course, the District of Columbia. The DC statute was only enacted in 2012, just months before Mann brought his claim. Although the anti-SLAPP statutes vary substantially from state to state, the DC statute is fairly typical in seeking to protect the “right of advocacy on issues of public interest.” Here is the relevant text:
A party may file a special motion to dismiss any claim arising from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest. . . . If a party filing a special motion to dismiss under this section makes a prima facie showing that the claim at issue arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest, then the motion shall be granted unless the responding party demonstrates that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits, in which case the motion shall be denied.
It certainly would seem from the text that this statute was precisely intended to block what Mann is trying to accomplish in this case. And yet, the motions of NR and CEI did not succeed. The trial court denied the motions, and the DC Court of Appeals affirmed. There then was an attempt by NR and CEI to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, but that was also turned down, over a dissent by Justice Alito. By the time that request was turned down, we were in 2019. The explanation — if you want to call it that — of why the anti-SLAPP statute motions were lost can be found in the 2016 decision from the DC Court of Appeals. The opinion goes on and on (and on and on), but mostly gets totally tied up in knots trying to distinguish between statements of opinion (which are not actionable) and statements of fact (which might be actionable), and mixed statements of opinion and fact, and trying to figure out which category we are dealing with here. It’s all extremely unenlightening. If your hypothesis were that this is just the DC Court of Appeals providing a cover of dense verbiage for what is really a completely political decision, I could not prove you wrong.
“…If your hypothesis were that this is just the DC Court of Appeals providing a cover of dense verbiage for what is really a completely political decision, I could not prove you wrong. ”
Scalding…yet completely defamation free….
The DC Circuit is the main battleground the Left uses and they fight and scheme to “stack” it. Don’t expect any judicial relief from them.
Example: Biden has just appointed for Senate confirmation, the most radical DC District judge (Ketanji Brown) that has ever sat on a bench in any court anywhere. To replace Garland. Sundance (at the Conservative Treehouse) predicted this maneuver in “Garland Confirmed as AG 70-30, now Watch the Next Move” to elevate her to SCOTUS.
As he says, it’s how they roll.
The courts are a joke with this case going on nine years.
Commenting as a retired lawyer, the problem with the DC SLAPP act was poor wording. In my opinion, researched at the time of the DC Appeals court ruling, it was not political as much as wrestling with the legislative intent of a newish poorly worded statute.
That SCOTUS did not grant cert was utterly unsurprising. Cert is usually granted in just three situations: where different Appeals courts have come to opposite conclusions on the same legal issue (Trump immigration); where states have opposite legislation (Obergefehl gay marriage legality) in order to fulfill the requirements of A4§2; where a law is alleged to be unconstitutional (Roe v Wade). Mann’s case is none of those.
In any event, CEI and NR are now out of the picture. It is Mann v Steyn. Steyn should win on the merits (his summary judgement motion is persuasive and this post explains why). In the meantime Steyn made Mann’s process Mann’s punishment with his book ‘A Disgrace to the Profession—volume one’.
I joyfully point out the following as often as I can.
Mann’s case against Ball was dismissed on account of inexcusable delays. Mann was obviously avoiding going into court and subjecting himself to cross examination and rules of evidence and other legal niceties like that. Since he didn’t present evidence under his control, we can adversely infer that Mann, in Ball’s words, belongs in state pen.
Presumably he didn’t intend it to be so, but by his non production of evidence, Mann has admitted that he and his hockey stick are frauds.
Exactly. The narrative that the climate liars and climate idiots want to present to other climate liars and climate idiots is that Mann didn’t lose. Anyone who has been in any kind of litigation like this, as I have know:
MANN LOST THE CASE
Furthermore, whether or not he would or could have produced the evidence, I don’t know but I suspect strongly that the idiot couldn’t produce it because he made the sh!t up. TITO – toilet paper in toilet paper out.
Further furthermore, when this crap goes on as long as this, it doesn’t affect your life any more, so you don’t have to feel sorry for the great Mr. Steyn (and I doubt that he wants your sympathy anyway as he selects his baseball bat – metaphorically speaking, of course). You just get on with your life until the next motion requires some thought. Then deal with it, rinse and repeat. I had 10 years of it, but wised up before the 2 year mark.
I was also in a European Patent Opposition and it’s Appeal. That lasted 4 or 5 years, but did we knock back some Reisling in Munich. I even have fond memories of a lot of both of those episodes.
“toilet paper in used toilet paper out” Fixed it for you.
Aaaaaah yes, Brownian Motion …. another unaccounted for variable.
But he was (is) wrong!
https://twitter.com/WesHamel/status/1377356482149113858?s=20
And this:
https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1377295611251236866?s=20
“In any event, CEI and NR are now out of the picture. It is Mann v Steyn. “
As I understand, only NR is out of the picture, because of the technicality that Steyn was not their employee. It’s Mann vs CEI, Simberg and Steyn.
Yes, that’s true. I’ve never met Steyn, but Rand SImberg is a long-time friend of mine. He stays with us sometimes, while coming to DC for various purposes. I don’t know how he can stand this particular ordeal, but he does with great equanimity.
the problem with the DC SLAPP act was poor wording.
I’ve seen this over and over in CA legislation. The poor wording problem. It was a puzzle to me until I realized that lawyers write most legislation.
Lawyers are professionals at law (obvious). Are they too incompetent to write water-tight legislation? Nope
So, what’s going on? The solution to the puzzle was the further realization that lawyers make lots of $ litigating the poor wording.
Lawyers deliberately write bad law with an eye to their income. Whether representing plaintiffs or defendants at suit, lawyers never lose money.
But the people get saddled with poor law that not only does not solve the problem it was meant to solve, but was consciously written to be a source of income for lawyers.
Lawyers betray the law. Scientists now betray science. Scholars betray scholarship. All to their personal aggrandizement. That’s the world we now live in.
A little known fact to the public, but in CA almost every statute of limitations is at least two years and most are considerably longer.
Except for the one that pertains to suing a lawyer for just about any misconduct he may have engaged in such as a malicious prosecution; then it’s only one.
And that distinction is not spelled out in the list of SOLs. There is a very short, stand alone statute that establishes the blanket SOL for attorney involvement in tortious behavior. So one would assume, incorrectly that the SOL for attorneys engaged in various misdeeds is what the SOL says it is…but one would be wrong.
It’s even worse than that in California. Try getting an attorney to bring a legal malpractice suit against another one. I was in just such a situation, about 18 years ago, in a matter where a single, simple act of incompetence on the part of my attorney (on a simple matter of corporate law) cost me a decade’s worth of work. I took my file to another attorney, and after a quick look through he said, “This is clearly legal malpractice. But you’ll never get any attorney to do anything with it, including me.” He was right.
Thanks Pat,
Is Mann on here to down vote you?
Sadly, well said!
“it was not political as much as wrestling with the legislative intent of a newish poorly worded statute.”
Poorly worded. Big wow. Yawn. This has been the process for the administrative / legal profession for years. Draft poorly thought out legislation so that the legal system can be used to spend years and lots of money in the courts.
Advocacy is the whole game and truth (justice) is often the victim.
It is hard for one to solve a problem that one’s livelihood depends on, because then you have to find another problem to solve, or something to that effect as stated by Sinclair Lewis (I believe).
The problem with Steyn’s allegations of scientific fraud are many, but none more acute than the fact that Mann’s study has been turned over by finer toothed combs than any piece of scientific research in my knowledge, and none of those investigators have ever formally accused him of committing fraud, even when they took issue with his methods.
Steyn had claimed that he would produce proof of fraud during discovery, but his motion for summary judgement makes no reference whatsoever to any information that was not already public prior to discovery commencing.
So how come Mann could elicit NOT ONE amicus filing to support him in this case from all these “finer toothed combs investigators”?
(Could it be perhaps that deep down they really agree with Steyn that Mann is “A Disgrace To The Profession”?)
I don’t know, has Mann solicited amicus filings for this case? Has Steyn received amicus filings stating that Mann committed fraud?
Mann could well be too embarrassed to reveal if he did solicit amicus filings for his case, because if he had, he received a grand total of zero point zero.
Steyn’s defense I understand is truth, so that says all that he needs tp prove.
(IIRC at least one amicus curiae filing was lodged by Dr. Judith Curry. But I could be mistaken)
We can speculate about Mann’s inner thoughts and feelings until the cows come home, what kind of documented evidence exists?
Well there’s no documented evidence of amicus filings for Mann, because there were NONE.
(all those co-authors, all of Al Gore, all the climategate cabal – not one of them thought enough of M. Mann to write a reference letter for him. Bernie Madoff garnered more support from the people he fleeced ffs)
Kind of like if your brother-in-law was an complete ass and was accused of child molestation but stated that he was with relatives at a playground at the time as an alibi. Would you run to the courthouse to verify his statement?
Documented evidence includes that Mann testified before Congress that he never calculated a verification r^2 for his 1400 reconstruction step.
But his BACK TO 1400 CENSORED directory showed that he in fact did calculate that r^2 and knew for a fact that the step failed verification.
But he published anyway, and wrote his paper in so obscurantist a way as to hide the analytical truth.
Steve McIntyre has documented all that in detail.
There’s also no way a mathematically astute Michael Mann mistakenly used short-centering in his PC analysis. The only rational interence is that he did it deliberately, knowing the method would raise the White Mt. bristlecone ring series into PC1.
Plotically motivated people won’t care about any of that, because Mann’s output is expedient window-dressing for their power-grabbing end.
Mann did not testify to congress that he did not calculate the R2 statistic, he testified that he did not rely on the statistic as a verification test. That he did not rely on the R2 statistic as a verification test is, of course, perfectly valid, because the R2 statistic is not a measure of a statistical model’s skill.
It has been shown innumerable times that the hockey stick shape of MBH98 is not an artifact of the centering process. But, of course, that’s irrelevant, because whether or not the correct centering was used in the PCA analysis, your description of Mann’s inner motiviations is pure, unsubstantiated fantasy. Nothing but speculation. Where is the documented proof that he did something “deliberately” wrong?
Mickey? Hello? You in there?
Mann’s words, after denying he calculated the 1400 verification r^2, was that doing so would have been a silly and wrong thing to do.
That short centering was the source of Mann’s hockey stick is so far beyond dispute, that finding cause for dispure may require dimensional access to another universe. Or delusion.
That other hockey sticks were constructed, most notably by recourse to a single tree cored at Yamal, is also notoriously true.
I wrote nothing about Mann’s inner intent, W-r. I wrote that no rational person could observe the evidence and doubt chicanery.
Your mistaken claim about what I wrote demonstrates your own lack of observational mastery. What’s the cause of that? Are you a trans-dimensional alien, is it? Or merely subject to a banal delusion.
None of the proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions rise above pseudo-science.
Blog post here.
Again, Mann did not deny calculating the R2 statistic, he explicitly stated that it wasn’t used as a verification:
So, first, the claim that Mann denied calculating this statistic is blatantly false. And, second, Mann’s justification for not relying on this statistic to validate the reconstruction is completely valid.
You did write, explicitly, about what you believed to be Mann’s inner motiviation:
This passage undeniably imputes an inner motivation to Mann’s actions. Flagrantly contradicting yourself comment to comment is not an effective form of argumentation, Pat.You have presented no evidence, none whatsoever, that Mann deliberately chose this method to raise a specific series into a specific PC. If Steyn relies on arguments like yours to support his truth defense, he is in a a great deal of trouble indeed.
“This passage undeniably imputes an inner motivation to Mann’s actions.”
Wrong again, W-r. The passage says nothing about intent. It remarks only on behavior. Maybe Mann’s intent was to impress his mom. We don’t know.
What we do know is that the evidence indicates that he indulged a fraud.
“blatantly false.” From Steve McIntyre’s climate audit: “(Anticipating my report on Mann’s presentation a little, I’ll mention that one of the panelists asked him what the verification r2 statistic was for the 15th century. Mann said that they did not calculate the r2 statistic -” that would be silly.“) Given that MBH98 mentioned the term “r2” on no fewer than 7 occasions and even has a map showing the verification r2 statistic for the AD1820 step, you’d expect his nose to grow when he said this, but that’s a story for another day.”
Also here: “One of the panelists asked Mann about the verification r2 statistic: Mann said that “he did not calculate the verification r2 statistic – that would be a silly and incorrect thing to do”. The statement that the verification r2 was not calculated was untrue and the panel had evidence of this. The panel did not agree that this would be “silly and incorrect” since they endorsed the use of the closely related CE statistic for estimation of confidence intervals.
“However, they did not grasp the nettle of whether the adverse verification r2 statistics had been calculated and withheld.”
You clearly don’t know whereof you post, W-r.
“ We don’t know.”
Excellent. I’m glad we both agree that there is no evidence whatsoever that Mann had any intent to deceive or defraud anyone. This feels like progress. I hope Mr. Steyn is reading and taking notes.
Having failed to substantiate your allegation that Mann perjured himself to congress, you’ve now deftly pivoted to quoting a completely unverifiable claim by McIntyre that Mann made a comment to an NAS panel. This is certainly a lesser charge, but also one unaccompanied by evidence. Do you have a verified transcript of the panel where Mann purportedly made the remark McIntyre presents as an exact quotation?
“I’m glad we both agree that there is no evidence whatsoever that Mann had any intent to deceive or defraud anyone.”
A deliberate misrepresentation. Note I’m not ascribing intent here, W-r. Just noting your disingenuity.
Steve McIntyre was present at the panel. His report is here. SM relates, “Christy did ask Mann: “Did you calculate R2?” ‘? Mann’s answer was: “We didn’t calculate it. That would be silly and incorrect reasoning.” Whenever I hear this statement in my mind, the following phrase runs through my mind: “I did not have r2 with that statistic, Miss Lewinsky”.”
There’s your denial, W-r, by direct eyewitness testimony.
In fact you are imputing intent. You’ve tacked the word “deliberate” onto your allegation. If there was misrepresentation with no intent behind it then the misrepresentation would not be deliberate. You agree that there is no evidence whatsoever of intent in Mann’s case. If (big “if”) there was an incorrect application of centering in his PCA analysis there is no evidence (that you or anyone else has presented) that it was deliberate.
I don’t deny that this is McIntyre’s recollection of the exchange (after all we cannot impute intent to his actions without documented evidence that he has intentionally tried to deceive us). What I want to see is verifiable documentation, or even corroboration, that the exchange took place as he relays it, and that the context is fully apparent from his recounting.
After all, we see in the official transcript from Mann’s congressional testimony that he did not deny having calculated the R2 statistic, yet in your summary of his testimony, you recollected that he did deny it. If I didn’t have the written testimony to fall back on, I might have been mislead by you.
You seem to find all this trivial, but making an accusation of scientific fraud is not a trivial thing, and nowhere has anyone in this thread remotely met any standard of evidence for proving such a thing. You can’t even provide any expert testimony stating that Mann committed fraud (e.g. from Steve McIntyre, whose work forms the primary basis of your belief in the fraud).
Deliberated action can be driven by any one of multiple intents, W-r. You display flabby usage.
Steve McIntyre took notes during Mann’s presentation. Notes are not recollection.
You obviously did not follow up on any of the links I provided before making your judgment, W-r; your obviously wrong judgment.
Short centering PCA, denial of a verification r^2 that he had calculated, representing a numerical PC as physically meaningful are all evidence of incompetence in an honest worker.
Their adherence to an otherwise expert worker calls for a different judgment.
My judgment rests on the evidence described. Steve McIntyre has been superb in extracting that evidence into public view.
Mann’s denial of having calculated the r^2 is not itself evidence of fraud, but merely of lying. The fact that he calculated the r^2, knew the verification step failed, and published anyway, is evidence of fraud.
I agree with this, of course, and nothing I’ve said contradicts it. You acknowledge you have no idea what Mann’s intent was beyond speculation.
Yet Steve McIntyre has never accused Mann of committing fraud.
As I’ve stated multiple times (and as I’ve walked folks through numerous times in other threads on WUWT), the R2 statistic does not assess the skill of a statistical model, so even if he did not report that the reconstruction “failed” (not sure how something can fail an R2, but I digress) the R2 statistic, that would not be evidence of fraud.
The only evidence of any wrongdoing in this scenario you could possibly produce would be Mann deliberately lying about whether or not it was calculated. You’ve failed to prove that he perjured himself to congress, and the best secondary allegation you can come up with are Steve McIntyre’s uncorroborated, contextless notes from an NAS panel discussion. Again, if this is the level of argument Steyn is planning to forward for his truth defense, he’s in a tight spot.
More on Mann’s denial of the r^2 statistic from Steve McIntyre: “Perhaps the most surprising aspect of his presentation was his response to a question about the verification r2 statistic, in which he denied ever calculating the statistic as that would have been “silly and incorrect reasoning”. Given that we’d presented specific evidence that he had calculated this statistic, this seemed to me to be an unpromising line of defence for him.”
Also Steve McIntyre on the “crock” that is Mannian science after showing how Mann cherry picked data to impose a conclusion in MBH98: “This is the analysis. I kid you not. Let’s suppose that a 3rd year student handed in this analysis – what grade would it get just as statistics? You probably wouldn’t fail a phys ed student in a state university who was taking a required statistics course, especially if he played on the basketball team. How about a Ph. D. student at an Ivy League university?“
Apparently this earth shattering tome has as many relevant citations as your disturbing, disruptive, 2019 paper….
When did scientific verity require citations?
Maybe in bob-world, where factual truth is defined by subscription of the people bob prefers.
Back in 2001, I published work on the Fe-Mo-S cofactor of Nitrogenase. That paper solved a 20-year problem in the field, and reconciled all the prior published data that had until then been unexplained.
It also showed that the solution chemistry of FeMoco was far more complicated than had been realized. Certain research projects elsewhere were unlikely to succeed, and so were evidently abandoned.
The paper has had few citations since then, after it put an end to a small research industry. People left the field after that paper.
The 2019 paper on the unreliability of CMIP5 models not only ends a huge research industry, but shoots down in flames multiple careers.
The urge of those folks — owners of disproven research and blasted careers — to embrace denial is probably overwhelming.
Lack of citations is not unexpected when science refutes the storyline of embedded politics; especially when it’s a politically approved pseudo-scientific storyline.
Why would anyone think that astrologers would cite the astronomy that obliterates their income?
So it is for climate modelers, after 06 September 2019. Their silence is a deafening confirmation.
Consider, bob, the further absence of a peer-reviewed and published falsification of my work. Guess what that means.
“So it is for climate modelers, after 06 September 2019. Their silence is a deafening confirmation.”
Their “silence” is them moving on, satisfied (as am I) that your ramblings are being cited as often as required. But I’m glad that you still have a government funded sinecure and that you can podcast to your fellow left behinders….
You’ve repeatedly demonstrated that you don’t know what you talk about here, bob.
The same litany demonstrates a lack of sense to be modest when ignorant.
The combination is not pretty. Arrogant blowhardery.
If fraud trials depended on finding ‘documentary evidence’then there would be very few convictions for obvious reasons the fraudsters do not tend to leave it around. Instead the law tries to find attempts to conceal or mislead which is far easier to find and equally constitutes evidence. Mann’s ‘hiding the decline’ would be a good starting point.
Of course if it is not a jury trial but one composed of ‘experts’ then who knows what the verdict might be. The point of trial by jury which has served the english-speaking world for some seven hundred years was to banish these ‘experts’ in favour of ordinary people. It has generally proved to be more satisfactory.
The pervert identified at the park as Mickey by a hundred excellent professional observers was not proven to be Mickey? Gotcha! What’s he doing to that tree?
Weakly failing,
Your attempt to protect fellow members of your religious cult are noble but misguided! By trying to cover for frauds and liars you paint yourself with same brush!
Could you please list for all to see the benefits of the colder, less fertile world you are trying to achieve?
Mann has none while Steyn has several.
I’m not sure what your point is but Mann’s fraud was implied if not stated directly in the extensive analysis done by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick which first highlighted the numerous problems with Mann’s infamous hockey stick study. There was no doubt that Mann was either a lousy scientist or purposely obscured data to support the claims in his study.
The faux investigations by Penn State University, the National Science Foundation and others “cleared” Mann without actually examining the data and methods of the hockey stick study or relevant communications. These weren’t investigations in the sense of a legal investigation. It was more like, “oh, he’s a good guy and we don’t see anything that would lead us to think he would purposely mislead people, plus he’s pushing the right narrative so he’s cleared.”
Just like the nonsense hockey stick study, their investigations ignored or didn’t even bother to try to examine evidence that didn’t fit their predetermined narrative. As emails from colleagues have illustrated (that were never included in any of the “investigations”), Mann would indeed—and did—purposely mislead people in his study.
Can you show me where McIntyre and McKitrick explicitly accuse Mann of fraud?
You believe the hockey stick chart is valid science?
Of course. I also believe some legitimate issues were raised about some of the methodology (also some completely illegitimate issues were raised about the methodology, but that’s a digression). I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Mann committed scientific fraud. Not even the people who identified the legitimate methodological issues have alleged that. That will be Steyn’s biggest difficulty in trying to argue to the court that his allegations of fraud are true.
First, nobody cares nor does the case depend on your wilful ignorance of the evidence.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
second, you either willfully or ignorantly misstate Steyne’s “biggest difficulty.” Steyne has no legal burden to argue that the allegations are true.
That appears to be exactly what he’s trying to do in his motion for summary judgement. He does not have a legal burden to argue this, but appears to have adopted it as a legal strategy.
Is that you Michael?
“That will be Steyn’s biggest difficulty in trying to argue to the court that his allegations of fraud are true.”
Fraud meaning: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
Mike’s Nature trick for starters and if his supporters want to engage in semantics around the word ‘trick’ then clearly Steyn is entitled to the same about the use of ‘fraud’ wouldn’t you say?
Carlo, to W-r: “You believe the hockey stick chart is valid science?”
W-r: “Of course.”
One can only laugh. And you presume to criticize science.
Where’s the valid physical theory that converts a paleo-proxy into air temperature, W-r? Any paleo-proxy.
Maybe try life without the ideological blinders for a while. You don’t seem to be seeing very much.
Proxies have never been proven to be reliable instruments of that which they are supposedly trying to measure. Proxies are heuristic not deterministic. Therefore they are not mathematically valid. Proxies are not instruments that can be calibrated in the range within which they are supposedly measuring temperature. Mann had and has the burden of showing that the instrumentation he is relying on is accurate. He ASSUMES accuracy. He cannot demonstrate it. The decline after 1960 is a HUGE red flag as it raises this very issue. He concealed it. Concealment is generally considered to be an element of fraud.
The decline after 1960 is present only in the latewood density of certain species of high northern latitude trees. The divergence problem is not present in the latewood density of southern forests, and not present in many species, or many other types of dendro-proxies, which is a strong indication that it is a limited issue.
But, of course, Mann never concealed any such thing. His 98 study did not show the divergence issue, partly because he used very few latewood density records from those trees, but also because his was a multiproxy reconstruction.
This is one, among many, aspects of the fraud that Steyn is alleging that is simply false.
Thank you for proving my point. Had he made the points you made in your first paragraph, there would have been no concealment. Yet, he concealed. QED
P.S. Your claim that he didn’t “hide the decline” is unsupported.
These points have been made since 1995, when the issue was first identified, by Mann and other experts in the field. Briffa published an entire paper specifically about this issue in 1998. It’s discussed at length in the IPCC FAR.
So, it appears, by your own reasoning, that Mann did not conceal anything.
Nice try. Grafting instrumental temperatures on to a graph of proxy temperatures to “hide the decline” is misconduct. It happened. They got caught.
Mann never “grafted” the instrumental record onto his reconstruction. The two series wer plotted alongside each other, the purpose was to bring the temperatures up to them (at the time) present day, since the proxy records ended in 1980. The figure caption clearly explained this, and the two series were plotted using different line styles to differentiate them.
You might be conflating Mann’s work with the graphic prepared by Phil Jones for the WMO report, which plotted the instrumental temperatures and reconstructions as a single line. That graphic was certainly arguably misleading, but it wasn’t Mann’s work.
“Mann never “grafted” the instrumental record onto his reconstruction.”
More Mann Grafting
Doing the research really helps prevent false assertions, W-r.
Thanks for providing additional evidence that Mann has not grafted the instrumental record onto his reconstruction. The two series are clearly differentiated by different colors. It’s also a tad bit late to be claiming he has grafted anything, since this documented was published 17 years after MBH98.
“The two series are clearly differentiated by different colors.”
You’ve reached a whole new level of fatuous, W-r.
Surely you must understand why from my perspective it seems like McIntyre is grasping for straws here.
I grasp from your stated perspective, W-r, that you insist upon the wrong and the irrational.
“Mann and other experts in the field.”
Experts at pseudo-science.
See also Proxy Science and Proxy Pseudo-science.
Michael Mann hasn’t published any science since his work on lanthanide ceramics in the early 1990s.
Mann’s actual hokey graph sows we’d be at +0.6°C anomaly by year 2000:
Yet we were at a -0.4°C anomaly in 2000 per UAH:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
The baseline 0° 40-year averages were different… but neither proclaims what the actual zero °C is. Was it 13 or 14 or 15 degrees… or what?
Mann used 1961-1990 average temp… northern hemisphere.. which is 14.6°C:
[Jones et al. (1999) report the 1961-1990 reference period means for the globe, northern hemisphere, and southern hemisphere as 14.0°C, 14.6°C, and 13.4°C, respectively.]
The hokey graph actually shows +0.7° which would be 15.3°C.
We have never reached that high! Fraud?
Troll!
Do you suppose that the notoriety of The Mann bringing in mega donations to the State Penn has anything to do with the whitewash?
As Sundance says “Follow the money”
WR, you are apparently unfamiliar with the case. Steyn underwent discovery from Mann long ago. Mann has to date refused discovery from Steyn based on pending CEI. If Steyn wins the SJ, there will be none. If he does not, Mann can no longer avoid it and it will be catastrophic for him.
He stalled to avoid it in Ball’s case until the Canadian court threw him out with prejudice for undue delay. So tells you what that discovery would mean.
Can you provide a source showing that Mann has refused discovery? The judgement in the Ball v. Mann case did not list a refusal by Mann to undergo discovery as a reason for dismissal, do you have a source showing that Mann refused discovery in that case as well?
That’s a feeble quibble. Mann did not pursue the case. Period. That’s how he avoided presenting evidence under his control.
Mann says he didn’t lose because the case wasn’t decided based on the real issues. That was because he didn’t properly pursue the case. It was under his control. It’s like a boxer claiming he didn’t lose because he wouldn’t come out of his corner and fight.
“Can you provide a source showing that Mann has refused discovery?”
As often with Rud, the asserted facts just aren’t true. Mann has not refused any valid discovery request, and Steyn has not undergone any court supervised discovery. In fact, in 2014 the defendants applied for a stay of discovery, which was granted. That is still in effect. In 2016, Steyn sought unsuccessfully to have that lifted; his application is here, along with the original order for a stay. A quote from Steyn’s submission:
“More than two years ago, this Court granted, over the objections of Plaintiff and Defendant Steyn, the motion of Defendant National Review for a stay of discovery pending appeal. “
Here is the link, which didn’t show, to Steyn’s application for lifting stay on discovery, which includes the original order. The application was denied, and the stay is still in force.
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/7531.pdf
Nick, you would do much credibly better as an actually licensed US lawyer. You aren’t. I am.
OK, produce some evidence that Steyn underwent discovery. Or that Mann refused. Or that CEI has been released from the case.
Did you try telling the judge “Easy. Ask Steyn virtually.”?
Easy. Ask Steyn virtually. He has commented on this fact himself many times on his blog. He should know, and you can look that up to verify should you wish.
What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.
The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.
Mickey mann CANNOT ALLOW FULL DISCOVERY.. period.
Can you provide verifiable documentation of any of this? None of it is outlined in the judgement from the BC court.
Yes it is. Now you’re just lying.
It’s not just now that the troll you are responding to is lying, he’s been lying since word one. It’s what trolls like him do.
Objection, argumentative nonsense. Outcome of the verdict aside, can you provide a source that disproves Mark Fuhrman didn’t actually get the better of OJ?
Based on the facts outlined in this article, particularly Mike’s nature trick to hide the decline, a reasonable person could conclude the Mann’s hockey stick was fraudulent. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
This article is misleading. The reconstruction in MBH98 is not truncated in 1980 – that is when the proxies end. Nor does Mann’s reconstruction show a divergence from the instrumental record after 1960. “Mike’s Nature Trick” was to plot instrumental temperatures alongside the proxy series so that temperatures run up to the (at the time) present day. The “hide the decline” is in reference to Keith Briffa’s tree ring series, which show a divergence from instrumental temperatures after 1960.
Steyn does not have to prove fraud in the legal sense, just in the ordinary, casual sense that opinion writers use it. That this graph is fraudulent in a layman’s sense of the term is obvious on its face.
I agree, an ordinary person, ‘the man on the Clapham omnibus’ by that wording wouldn’t understand that Steyn was accusing Mann of a criminal offence, IMO.
Agreed on BOTH counts:
As mentioned he used the word in the vernacular sense; Mark writes a satirical column on a very regular basis. He is talking to the ordinary man or woman, not scientists or lawyers.
This is an OPINION piece, not a hard news item, nor a legal or scientific statement. Mark is free to believe that the documented devices Mann used were intended to deceive. Again, in the vernacular, that is “fraudulent” regardless of the legal definition of the word.
See my post above on climate idiots and climate liars. Methinks you resemble those remarks.
MANN LOST THE CASE AGAINST BALL
We know Weakly fail is a CLIMATE LIAR and condones FRAUD.
We also know he/she/it is a scientifically inept clown !
How does Steve McIntyre fit into your two paragraphs of propaganda? Seems to be missing…
The main counter to your argument that (in an OPINION piece) Steyn said the graph was “fraudulent” is the fact (brought up in the trial) that Mann himself has called other legitimate scientists “fraudulent” because they disagreed with his conclusions or methods.
Mann’s lack of self awareness was humorously exposed in a Congressional hearing (in which Steyn participated) where in his opening statement Mann declared he had been “defamed” because some people erroneously wrote that he called Judith Curry a “denier”. Michael angrily declared “I never did!”. Dr. Curry calmly interrupted and stated “You just wrote that in your pre hearing statement for the committee.”
If memory recalls that was also the hearing where the Dem Reps would unfairly badger Dr Curry’s about her papers and conclusions but refused to let her respond. Mark, having successfully won a significant case of free speech in his native Canada, would have none of Sen Whitehouse’ bullying tactics and spoke through the gaveling to stand up for the good Doctor and demanded the committee let her respond. Which she subsequently did quite convincingly.
Can you cite Mann specifically accusing another scientist of fraud for disagreeing with him?
https://www.livescience.com/39957-climate-change-deniers-must-stop-distorting-the-evidence.html
(Sep 2013)
“Career fossil-fuel-industry apologist Bjorn Lomborg”
“serial climate disinformer Judith Curry”
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann
(Jan 2014)
“Testimonies at the EPW Senate Hearing: #Science vs #AntiScience #Dessler #Curry”
“Patrick Moore (aka “EcoSenseNow”) is no more than a garden variety troll w/ nothing serious to offer.”
is what I found in 5min.. I bet there is more..
These aren’t accusations of fraud. Maybe your search needed more than 5 minutes?
English isn’t your first language, is it?
The weakly’s desperation is paramount.. and hilarious 🙂
I am in no way a legal expert, but I would think the standard for actual fraud would be difficult to prove. Mann can simply hide behind “there was all sorts of conflicting data and disagreement amongst the scientists. I simply used my incredible scientific skills to arrive at what I believed the best answer.”
Is it fraud? Likely not. Is it unethical and completely against scientific principles? Absolutely.
The thing is Mann has not provided the discovery. He has yet to provide ALL data he started with and the code used to massage it to the stick. He had MANY series of data he discarded. If you want the truth, visit Climate Audit and see what Steve McIntire found.
Mann IS a fraud, and you are just ignorant of that fact. I mean, where is the MWP, LIA, etc.
“have ever formally accused him of committing fraud”
Weasel words.
Overwhelming proof that Mann committed fraud is here, and readily available by search to anyone who’s honestly interested.
So why hasn’t McIntyre explicitly accused Mann of fraud?
Go read A Disgrace to the Profession and educate yourself.
Please cite a relevant passage from the book wherein Steve McIntyre accuses Mann of committing fraud.
Read it and you will have that particular joy of discovery. Do not ask another to do something that you are too scared to do yourself. Do some original research for once in your life – it might change your whole outlook.
If you can’t cite the passage, a simple “I can’t substantiate my position” will suffice, just for future reference.
Steve walked up and introduced himself to Mann at a conference, and Mikey Fraudpants apparently became Mikey Needsachangeofpants.
Steve McIntyre is a highly civilized guy. He has always stopped at analysis and report. He has never, to my knowledge, posted judgments of the ethical criminality that his analyses have revealed.
Nick Stokes’ attempted foray into barristerhood ended ignominiously, but also fortunately rather quickly.
I don’t know if Weakly-Rise is a lawyer but if he is he is from the baffle-them-with-bluffs-when-arguing-a-losing-hand school of mouthpiecing.
“Fraud” in this case need merely demonstrate deception by Mann since Steyn was not referring to either civil or criminal fraud but scientific misconduct. To deny that Mann has been deceptive in his data manipulations and archiving is the work of either a fool or a crook. They have been well and often documented as the foregoing links demonstrate. Whether McIntyre or anyone else accused Mann of fraud is as smelly a red herring as has been drawn across a trail in many moons.
The two main and most common defenses to a claim of defamation are privileged speech and the truth of the assertion which is an absolute defense. Consequently it would be irresponsible of Steyn’s attorneys not to use that available defense, especially since as they demonstrate in their summary judgment brief that Mann had in fact “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science”. it’s worth noting W-R doesn’t attack the motion for summary judgment’s claims but only peripheral and largely irrelevant ones.
In a defamation case the defendant in effect does have the burden of proof and Steyn has made his case in his brief. If Weakly wants to play mouthpiece then his job is to pick that brief apart not lead people down a hundred pointless rabbit trails regarding people and statements not related to the case.
Mann as a public figure also has the essentially insurmountable malice standard as produced by the Sullivan decision, as he knew when he filed it. But the purpose was to harm others with the prosecution itself not win. As far as I know Mann has never paid Tim Ball the money the Canadian court ordered him to pay so Weakly is not only defending a fraud who will eventually lose every one of these suits he has filed but a cheap, underhanded creep as well.
Really great analysis, Brian.
An excellent summary. We hope this does go to trial and that Mann loses and has to pay court costs. The news would be hard to ignore and highlights the abuses central to the efforts of climate alarmists: cherry-picking and purposely rejecting data to support a false narrative then using lawfare and other means to silence critics. Having Mann pay court costs and suing him to pay Steyn’s legal fees would be icing on the cake.
Court costs, be damned. Mark Steyn has filed a counter suit (a few million, I believe) If he wins as defendant he’ll win his own suit. Mann’s controllers can’t risk that. They would try to settle out of court.
Do you think Steyn would settle out of court? Revenge is a dish best served cold, and after a nearly ten year wait I think Steyn would go for the jugular.
And if Steyn ever gets Mann on the witness stand I think he will eviscerate him. I suspect Mann wouldn’t be able to control his own mouth.
Steyn has ten times the brains of nasty, bitter, mediocre Michael Mann.
This above.
Little mad Micky wouldn’t be able to control himself, the vindictive little bastaard and his persecution complex disorder would let it all out, without even realising his mask had slipped and everyone and anyone would see the ”real” Micheal Mann and his bunker mentality issues.
“Court costs, be damned. Mark Steyn has filed a counter suit (a few million, I believe) “
You are out of date there. Steyn’s case was dismissed, with prejudice, in August 2019.
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2019/20190829_docket-2012-CA-008263-B_order.pdf
Appellate Court Awards Conservative Commentator Mark Steyn $1 Million in Attorney Fees
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/appellate-court-awards-conservative-commentator-mark-steyn-1-million-in-attorney-fees/
Mark Steyn files an eviscerating Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann libel suit
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/24/mark-steyn-files-an-eviscerating-motion-for-summary-judgement-in-the-michael-mann-libel-suit/
One of the reasons this case was so onerous was that from day one, Mann had no skin in the game. He was backed by an fund claiming to be in “support of scientists under attack” (Google has disappeared any reference to Mann’s backers and I no longer remember the name of the group.)
I’ve wrongly stated here it was willie soon.
That was because i got willie mixed up with the asian billionaire whose name i cant remember now thats picking up manns legal costs.
He is quite well known for his support of all things climate alarmist based and someone here will remember his name.
Your quite right about google disappearing the details as it used to be common knowledge and easy to locate.
Just another case of google acting as the ministry of truth and deciding what people don’t need to know anymore.
I wish that Marvin Hagler could give Mann one last jab.
Wont even be able to do it in the after-life.
Cos where mad micky is going is pretty hot.
Or, if Dante is to be believed, very cold.
The hokey schtick farce dialed my skepticism up to 11 when it was publicly revealed that Mann ditched the proxy temps and substituted them with the instrumental values.
His claim was that the ditched proxies were unreliable.
Sooo, if the later proxies were unreliable, what’s to say the earlier proxies weren’t also unreliable?
The whole thing just kind of falls apart, doesn’t it?
Not in the mind of a ball headed fart.
The wheels fell off the Hockey Stick ages ago. And yet, Mann is still the MSM’s “go to guy” on climate hysteria. They made a bargain with the Devil. They ignore his failings and he will say what they want on camera & with a straight face. But they’re stuck with him as their Thermageddon poster boy. This is why the Court is dragging their heels. They’ll have to rule against him, but it’ll be a stain on the Cause.
Over twenty years ago. The offending paper was MBH98. McIntyre and McKittrick dismantled (thoroughly falsified) it shortly after it was published. Besides, it was never valid science, nor were any of the follow up papers that tried to prove the same nonsense. The full data and methodology was never published, open source making the paper non-falsifiable.
The entire sordid affair is available at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.
For normal, reasonable, intelligent people. obviously, not for weekly-rise.
Hokey schtick, that’s a good one!
The decline of proxies relative to temperature post-1960s is strong evidence that the relation between the proxies and temp may be multi-valued. If so, without an additional variable, reconstruction of past temperatures from proxies is not possible.
At least, from Mann’s “favored” proxies…
The wealthy and well-backed ALWAYS own the advantage in courts because of the various legal “tricks” they can pull. I don’t think there is any fixing the fact that the more money you throw at a legal battle the more and better quality lawyers you can field.
It is shameful for the courts to allow something like this to go on so long, but as long as judges are human they will be biased and misinformed on anything approaching science. With luck they accidentally fall onto the correct side (like teaching evolution in school), but it’s just luck.
With the newer judges being less concerned with logic, precedence, and law and more concerned with an outcome that is “just” (or sensitive to some favorite cause or group) we can expect to see more and more litigation whose outcome defies common sense.
My advice is to always keep yourself away from lawyers unless unavoidable. Years ago I was involved in a fraudulent lawsuit. It was dismissed with a summary judgement. The plaintiff appealed. It was again thrown out. The plaintiff again appealed. This time the case was thrown out and the plaintiff was sanctioned. Even though the defendant received some reimbursement for legal fees the defendant was still out over $100,000 plus the company’s employees time to defend the suit. You see many cases settled for $50,000 to $100,000 because this is less than the cost to defend a fraudulent lawsuit.
Too true.
My company had a negligence claim filed against us.
Her case was totally without merit – a total try-on.
I told her we’d see her in court.
The plaintiff’s lawyers directly approached our liability insurers.
Our insurers decided to settle for $45k, explaining that this was cheaper than defending in court, and wouldn’t cost my company anything.
I was furious.
This is how lawyers and insurers increase costs for everyone, right across the board, all the time.
“wouldn’t cost my company anything.”
To the extent that this kind of thing is prevalent in the insurance industry, it already may have cost your company plenty. Settlements are paid out of premiums, no?
Been there done that Mr.
Back in the 1990s we had a run away growth in employees claiming for minor injury sprained knees, twisted back that sort of thing. The Unions had worked out the insurers would pay out any claim less than £5,000 rather than fight it.
I called the Union leaders in and told them, I had instructed the insurers they are not free to settle any more claims, and all claims will be investigated and validated from here on.
There were no more minor injury claims after that meeting.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” — a legal maxim that, according to Wikipedia, is variously attributed to William Ewart Gladstone, William Penn, the Magna Carter of 1215, or even Martin Luther King Jr., who in turn ascribed it to “one of our distinguished jurists”.
This is like comments seen hourly in other media platforms and from journalist-trainees for the Biden administration, all day everyday. But of course there are no investigations of courts and judges in the case of time and cost mismanagement (punishment) techniques.
They cant afford to let Mann lose, think of the fallout –
$ billions of taxpayers cash has been lost on this scam,
Banks have wasted money on crazy ‘green schemes’
university’s have staked their reputations on this,
1,000s of political careers will be in the balance or wiped out
IMHO
The whole thing is now to big to fail, so they will keep it in court for years until either Mann or Steyn die.
Remember – “Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the court, perennially hopeless”.
That was a Charles Dickens fiction. This is a Mann v Steyn reality.
Rud, Charles was very prescient.
Make that $ trillions. And when Joe Bloggs finally figures it out there will not be enough lampposts in the country.
Hiding in plain sight: https://www.steynonline.com/documents/11110.pdf
“Steyn’s a witch!” As I believe Steyn said, “the process is the punishment.” Arguing with people such as Weekly _ Rise is a waste of your time. Thank you for the pdf Dennis.
The Supreme (SUPREME? Bow down now) Court of Canada recently ruled in favour on the Constitutionality of the Federal Liberal government’s argument that climate change is an imminent danger to Canada and the rest of the world and Canadian provinces must establish taxes/regulations to limit “carbon/carbon dioxide” emissions. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/supreme-court-of-canada-rules-that-federal-carbon-tax-law-is-constitutional The Court noted that the Provinces that objected to the Federal motion all agreed on the imminent danger of climate change due to emissions. Not even the Alberta government could bring itself to doubt the “settled science”, there are votes to be had. “Never let ethics get in the way of doing the right thing!”. I await the Supreme Court of Canada’s latest treatise on “Climate Change”. At least there were 3 dissenters out of 9 justices, sorry, judges. 3 for 9 in baseball is really good but…..How does a citizen take the Supreme Court to court?
The “learned” justices have once again truly overstepped both their wisdom and their authority. They are, collectively, an ass. Where did they assume the authority to decide matters of science, by fiat? This decision can’t be anything but arbitrary and making such a decree positions them as fools. They have shamed our courts and the law. By even engaging in such a travesty without empirical evidence proven themselves in contempt of natural law … little better than the Spanish inquisition.
As “climate emergency” is unprovable in court, and the court has to operate based on evidence, i think that is how this must be appealed, force the scientologists into the open.
I think they would be terrified of such a thing, and i think the SC stepped way over the line, opening up a possiblity of a case.
Thanks for posting that. I see Trofim Karl was called in for attempted back-up too. What a pair they make.
Mickey Mann CANNOT ALLOW DISCOVERY… Period.
Be great to get this sorted one way of another. I just hope Steyn doesn’t do a Sidney Powell and use the “Oh you didn’t take me seriously did you?” “I was only kidding when I told the world Trump was robbed by the fraudulent lefties.” I really want to know if Steyn can prove Mann was deliberately fraudulent?
Yawn, get some new material, Simon-the-Shill.
You don’t want to see if Steyn can back his fraud claim up?
I want to see if Mann can back up his hockey stick claim.
As does half the world.
(the other half being the media in general)
Well it goes both ways doesn’t it so yes I’m good with that (Mann showing what he’s got).
mickey mann will continue to run and hide and slither around in avoidance (like you do when asked to provide evidence)
little mickey CANNOT ALLOW DISCOVERY under any circumstance…
It would DESTROY him.
Hey, Simon-the-Shill, I’ve been wanting to ask—are you still excited about the reign of Chairman Dementia Zhou? That was quite the performance he pulled off in the “press conference” last week, although he needed a cheat sheet with color icons so he could call on only the press shills on the approved question list.
Who do you think is the real power behind the Executive Order pen? Is it Ms. Cackles? Or someone else? I’ll bet you are secretly pining for her to take over.
What do you think about the next trillion+$$$$ democrat wish list bouncing around on Capital Hill? I think your wallet is going to get quite a bit thinner before this clown show ends.
” I really want to know if Steyn can prove Mann was deliberately fraudulent?”.
Steyn doesn’t have to prove anything, he is the defendant in Mann’s case.
If you read the Steyn’s memorandum linked above:
‘…the Court of Appeals has already held that the word “fraudulent” is incapable of defamatory meaning …’ and ‘… such an ambiguous statement may not be presumed to necessarily convey a defamatory meaning …’.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
Fake news. Her lawyers were apparently making an important legal point that her opinions were not statements of fact. There are different standards for statements of opinion versus statements of fact.
Fake news, really? We will see. Either way she has shown herself to be a complete fraud. I can’t imagine how I would feel if I was one of the gullible who swallowed her “kraken” BS then read what her ‘lawyers” wrote.
So the multiple eyewitnesses at the TCF Center who all gave sworn depositions about what they saw, are all liars who can now be prosecuted for perjury, according to Simon-the-Shill.
Many of the stories were vague at best and some have even decided they wanted to withdraw their sworn testimonies.
OK, now I know you are pushing an agenda and are willing to lie and twist in order to sell it.
I watched hours and hours of the state committee hearings and those people were certainly not “vague”.
Did you watch the one with Melissa Carone?
How much of your payday are you willing to fork over for the Watermelon Green Raw Deal?
The moment I first saw her I knew what the next SNL cold open would look like and who would play her.
I demand a retraction. You are accusing me of being “one of the gullible who swallowed her ‘kraken’ BS.” There is NO support for this defamatory statement. The “Fake News” referred to the analysis that she was retracting her statements. She has, as a matter of fact, NOT retracted her statements. Her lawyers are making an important legal argument that is based on case law. Making the point that it is “Fake News” that she has retracted her statements makes NO judgement as to my belief or not in her statements. I have made NO statement about the credibility or veracity of the claims she has made in various lawsuits nor have I made any statement about the credibility or veracity of her legal defense strategy. My comment was that the analysis that she had retracted her statements was “Fake News.” I stand by that. Many thanks to Monte Carlo for the excellent reference to the article by Mackenzie Bettle.
I think you are illiterate regarding legal arguments. The arguments made in that article stand on their own without regard to the author. Judging arguments based on the author is a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. The courts will not make a decision in this case based on the signature of the attorney that filed the brief. The courts will examine the arguments themselves in light of the applicable statutes and case law. You might wish to do the same.
Phil. What ever way your team try to cut it, Powell is is deep shite. She lied and is now trying to weasel her way out of being held accountable. Her only saving here is if she can convince the court she is somehow protected because it was opinion not fact she was stating. If you want a clear breakdown of this and what lies ahead for her and the case read this
https://verdict.justia.com/2021/03/31/sidney-powell-files-a-brief-embracing-fact-free-politics
Stop trying to change the subject. I made NO statements about the merits of her case. Please retract your accusation.
Phil. Now come on…. Where did I say you were one of the gullible? This is exactly what I wrote:
“I can’t imagine how I would feel if I was one of the gullible who swallowed her “kraken” BS then read what her ‘lawyers” wrote.”
I’m confused, are you saying you “are” one of the gullible coz I never did?
Cute,but trollish.
You say the nicest things.
Mind you if you were one of the gullible you probably still believe she is the real thing….
https://uncoverdc.com/2021/03/31/sidney-powells-legal-defense-dominates-dominion/
That article certainly puts a creative spin on things. We will watch this space with interest.
OK so I googles the authors name (Tracy Beanz). Turns out she is a Qanon nutbar. Who would have thought?
What is Qanon?
And who is Tracy Beanz? The by-line indicates the author as Mackenzie Bettle. Do you work for Eric Coomer?
Tracy Beanz was the first name popped up when I read the websites about page. Once I say Qanon I stopped reading and so should anyone.
You lied (again)—this Tracy person was not the author.
Maybe you should be joining AlAnon.
An honest error. She is an author for the extreme right website you pointed us to. Just not of that article. But like I said we will just have to wait and see how this plays out. Be interesting to see what happens to Matt Getz from here too.
Gaetz
I wonder how curious you were about the legitimate case against Hunter Biden versus yet more hoaxing from the tabloids? I’m guessing not very. You like to indulge in the latest “vast right wing conspiracy” theories, e.g. RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA.
Hunter Biden. Pretty curious, but then it turned to not much. I mean yes he has some serious issues, but he is not president of the country so I don’t really care. Russia R, R was not a right wing theory, it was left wing. But Gaetz looks like he is going down… and not on a 17 year old.
Based on your word as a paid liar and disinfo agent…sure.
I can assure you no one pays me. So tell me Carlo, are you a QAnon supporter? Do you believe that democrats were running a paedophile ring from a pizza parlour?
What is Qanon?
Do you listen to the good Dr. Fauci and wear two masks everywhere, just as your hero Dementia Quid Pro Zhou Bai-Den does while going down his pictograph cheat sheets?
“Do you listen to the good Dr. Fauci and wear two masks everywhere”
Don’t need to. In the country I live in, the leader here acted decisively and took the virus seriously. As a result, life in now back to normal and has been for the about 8 months. Pity President “it’ll be gone by Easter” Trump didn’t act so responsibly for the US.
And I am pleased to hear you are not a nutbar QAnon supporter.
Many thanks.
No problem. Note that bulk of the article was excerpted from Powell’s motion in which she made the same points.
You should never interrupt your opponent when he/she/they are making a donkey’s behind of themselves. Simon says: “I never called you gullible, but maybe I will.”
Notice also how he has given up arguing the “fake news” thing. There’s an old saying: if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if the law is on your side, argue the law; if neither the facts nor the law is on your side, argue like h***. Simon argues like h***. It’s funny.
if the law is on your side, argue the law;
Ummm I think you will find the law is on my side and not on Powell’s.
https://verdict.justia.com/2021/03/31/sidney-powell-files-a-brief-embracing-fact-free-politics
Please don’t change the subject. Powell didn’t retract her statements. That’s the “fake news” and the law. Once again, you’re arguing the merits of her statements. I’m not and have not. Please retract your statements.
“Once again, you’re arguing the merits of her statements. I’m not and have not.”
And I am picking there is a good reason for that….
Yes, there is a good reason. I didn’t mention the merits of her statements. Only that she hadn’t retracted them.
Fair enough… but at the very least the message her lawyers sent was somewhat in conflict with what she later said. Anyway it will be one to watch going forward.
Is there a difference, in libel law, between the adjective “fraudulent” and the statement “he committed fraud”? In common usage, the listener would perceive the second phrase as being more accusatory and having more intent that the use of the mere adjective. If the writer wanted to emphasise that Mann committed an act of fraud, he would surely write something like “so, we can conclude that what he did was fraudulent (or amounts to actual fraud).” In fact, the more the writer wants to impress the fraud aspect onto the reader, the more words he will take to say it. To say merely “fraudulent” has less emotive impact and will make less impression on the reader.
Is this a difference the courts would weigh up in a judgement?
The problem with all of these proxies is that they are used outside of their calibration range. If an instrument were used outside of its calibration range, it would be a very serious offense – like fraud. The problem is that uncertainty estimates are only valid for the calibration range. Outside the calibration range, the uncertainty estimates are unknown and statistical tests of significance are, therefore, not possible. The fraud comes when using uncertainty estimates from the calibration range outside of it and claiming significance.
I think McShane and Wyner have a nice discussion about this in their 2011 article.
As I understand it, it is not a range of calibration but among other things a non defined selection criteria. If for example you pick a tree proxy, but have no clear data on the precise temperature or CO2-effect (which for example could be affected if the tree grew up parts of its life at the edge of a forrest), you introduce an unkown uncertainty into your analysis and no method in literature deals with this one correctly,
ALL (!!) calculated uncertainties not considering this effect are too small and such proxy studies are just statistical nonsense!
Agreed. The problems with proxies are many. Thanks for the reference.
The problem with the proxies is that the way they’re used is pseudo-science.
The judiciary is the most corrupt branch of American government — even worse than Congress and the Regulatory Empire. Courts allow the trial process itself to be punishment, accepting baseless suits that drag on for years and reduce the innocent to absolute poverty. Meanwhile, if you have a legitimate claim, you’re quite likely to have a judge throw out your case for lack of standing. Increasingly, “standing” boils down to whether your suit might harm the agenda of the Democrat Party.
The legal system is run by “Avenattis” who are the norm of the profession not the exception. Just because you put a black robe on Avenatti doesn’t make him moral.
I don’t think climate fascism is fashionable any longer … mainly because any subject that is force fed to kids for a generation becomes absolutely hated by that generation. Kids want to rebel, not conform with another government imposed religion.
And now with the covid cult and the wrecking of the lives of many young people by government, there is going to be a lot of rebelling in the next years. And with the lockups causing 50,000 more deaths in the UK compared to no lockup Sweden, does anyone think anyone is going to listen to some idiot saying “trust me I’m a scientist”
To me the most obvious flaw in the hockey stick is that it has 1900 cooler than 1650 which was the coldest time of the Little ice age.
http://www.williamslopatto.com/superior-court-briefs.html
Link to Mann’s January 2021 motion to dismiss
I dont have link to the March 3 motion
“Briffa that showed a decline in temperatures after 1960, a message inconsistent with the prized hockey stick shape.”
A good explanation for the ‘decline’ was that we did, indeed, slip down for 35yrs into a cooling period so severe (“The Ice Age Cometh” stated the cover of a 1975 Newsweek edition), that prominent climate scientists (eg Stephen Schneider, P Ehrlich and Holdren, late of the Obama admin) later changed horses for the Thermageddon climate meme. Leonard Nimoy narrated a documentary of this now cancelled climate event:
https://www.iceagenow.info/remember-spock-leonard-nimoy-warning-us-of-another-ice-age-in-1979/
The full documentsry is available on UTube but you have to sign in to see it these days.
The reason the the “Ice Age Commeth” explanation for the ‘decline’ in tree ring temp proxies isn’t raised by the climate wroughters, is because they had already erased the steep cooling period and the 20th Century’s record highs that occurred in the decade spanning mid 1930s to mid 1940s to get rid of of the falsification of the CO2 control knob that this implied. The resulting unrelenting tenperature rise that replaced it
is an idictable frod on its own.
I was a newspaper boy in the late forties and early 50s and my mother accompanied me on winter evenings collecting for the papers in Winnipeg’s 35 to 40 below temps. Yeah, it was real. For that matter, I was a toddler in the late 1930s and listened to the horrific “Dust Bowl” stories of family and friends throughout the 1940s. Yeah it was real, too.
I understand that Canada, where IIRC Steyn resides, had tightening of its defamation (libel/slander) case law several years ago. (That’s civil law which in most of Canada and the US is the British Common Law system.)
OTOH, I understand that the law in Britain is skewed against the utterer.
In Canada, whether or not someone is a ‘public figure’ is a factor, IIRC that was a legal point debated in one of the lawsuits (the Steyn one or the Tim Ball one, they and Mann being widely published).