From Mark Steyn’s opinion piece today at steynonline.com
You’re Once, Twice, Three Times a Loser…
Michael E Mann, Loser (Again) (and Again)
~Global warm-monger Michael E Mann’s defamation suit against me for maligning his hockey stick is now in its tenth year in the fetid septic tank of American “justice”. Way back in early 2013, when the healthy glow of late middle-age had not yet faded from my now wizened cheeks, I asked the (if memory serves) second trial judge if we could just get the hell on with it and go to trial. He turned me down, alas. But here we are, a mere eight-and-a-half years later, and my wish has very belatedly been granted. We will be going to trial, albeit with rather fewer defendants than once were.
If you’ve not been keeping track of the litigious Mann’s courtroom score card, here’s how it stands after last week’s ruling:
~Mann vs Professor Timothy Ball (British Columbia Supreme Court):
Case dismissed; Mann loses (and has been ordered to pay costs, which the bum and deadbeat has declined to do);~Mann vs National Review (District of Columbia Superior Court):
Case dismissed; Mann loses;~Mann vs Competitive Enterprise Institute (DC Sup Ct):
Case dismissed; Mann loses.
The links above are all to the full text of the court judgments, because Mann’s doting fans always respond with, “Oh, well, that’s just a news story, or a blog… It doesn’t mean it’s true.” When he lost to Tim Ball, he told these remarkably gullible Mann-bois that he hadn’t really lost, because the judge had tossed the suit before they got to trial, so it wasn’t like a real defeat on the merits.
Which is a bollocks argument – like saying, ah, well, in a narrow technical sense I “failed” on the written part of the driver’s test, so I never got into the car, so it’s not a real fail. He did the same when he lost to National Review, but a little more perfunctorily, I thought. And, unless I’ve missed it, he doesn’t seem to have bothered with his “losing the case is just an irrelevant technicality” with respect to CEI, so presumably even he grasps that at a certain point the arithmetic’s dispositive and you can’t keep insisting that that big pile of court rulings doesn’t mean anything.
For what it’s worth, I’m glad to be shorn of my co-defendants, if only because in an American courtroom, if you have multiple defendants all with their own legal teams, the defense table looks like a clown car, which I never feel helps you with the jury. So I’m happy it’s down to Rand Simberg and me. It is less heartening that this fourth trial judge does not seem to share the same grasp of the central question of the case as his predecessor (Trial Judge Number Three), who did a grand job of shrinking the suit to its essentials. Judge Irving’s ruling that, after a decade of tosspotting around, the case against me and Simberg shall now proceed to trial is not without its mordant aspects. For example, Mann’s evidence of the damage he has suffered:
Dr. Mann asserts that his reputation was harmed in the community and that he began to receive disapproving glances around town after the articles were published.
That may be because he’s big buddies with paedo-enabler Graham Spanier, currently banged up in the Big House for child endangerment. Ah, but you gotta laugh, haven’t you? Because otherwise you’d convene a grand international conference and expel America from the Common Law world for its grotesque perversion of the functioning system it inherited.
Obviously the odds aren’t good for an unlikeable foreigner in front of a DC jury, but that was true in 2012 so why worry about it all these years later?
Er, unless I’m even more unlikeable now than I was back then…
UPDATE: From the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
DC Superior Court Rules in Favor of CEI in Michael Mann Lawsuit
Today the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued a decision granting CEI’s motion for summary judgment in a defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann in 2012. The court meanwhile denied motions for summary judgment from two other defendants in the case, as well as Mann’s motion for judgment that statements criticizing his research were false.
Competitive Enterprise Institute President Kent Lassman said:
“We are gratified by the decision from the court to grant summary judgment on the claims against CEI brought by Michael Mann. The ruling is a testament to a robust public sphere where ideas are contested through evidence, speech, and debate. We expect that the remaining defendants will be vindicated in time.”
- View the court opinion and related legal documents at cei.org/michaelmann
From Anthony, I’d like to make a few opinion points, based on my experience.
1. Since we have observed that with Mann, “the process is the punishment”, he will likely draw out any demands for discovery for the upcoming court date as long as possible. Plus he’ll likely outright reject calls for discovery due and claim some sort of obtuse intellectual property right defense as to why he shouldn’t have to disclose anything. After all, the Mann is “saving the planet” and self-appointed demigods such as him can’t be subject to such distractions when the entire human race is at stake.
2. When he’s finally got his back up against the wall with the judge for failing to provide discovery items, he’ll likely just withdraw the lawsuit. He knows he can’t win on the merits, and he can’t risk providing discovery materials; otherwise his entire ego-based house of climate cards would come crashing down.
3. This process will take at least two more years, but could go as long as another five given the DC court of Molasses.
4. When he does withdraw, Mann will use the same set of excuses he has historically used to avoid any debate or discussion. This will include denigration, name-calling, social media tantrums, and the ever popular “not worth his time because I have a planet to save” argument. See Jor-El complex.
For legal purposes Dr Mann is a ‘public figure’, which means the bar for defamation gets set higher, basically he would have had to prove CEI acted with actual malice. The summary judgement makes the point that CEI merely hosted the online discussion platform where Rand Simberg posted the article in question, describing the venue as:
“a blog designed for low-effort management on the part of CEI, where outside writers enjoy a platform for their opinions, with only cursory review by a relatively low-ranking CEI employee prior to publication.”
So Mann had little chance of proving actual malice by CEI. That this took nine years is astonishing.
Note though that requests for similar summary judgements by Simberg and Steyn have been denied and never forget also that these legal actions are nothing more than a sideshow, nothing to do with the reality of AGW or even the merits of the Hockey Stick.
Mann is in a real pickle. He can’t allow discovery because that could show his “scientific” fraud, but he can’t back down because Steyn would have an excellent malicious prosecution case. Mann made a huge mistake taking on the likes of Steyn.
Discovery is complete. Mann’s team provided over a million items including all the backround on the Hockey Stick. No evidence of fraud was uncovered, for the simple reason that there was no fraud.
I guess “trick” to deceive is different from fraud. But I am not a legal expert unlike John Phillips.
More fundamental than the graphing “tricks” and “hide the decline” is the statistical atrocity of “short centring” as exposed by Steve McIntyre and comprehensively explained in Andrew Montford’s book “The Hockey Stick Illusion”. John Phillips may think Mann a scientist but Steyne’s book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” shows that there are plenty of scientists not so keen on Mannian science.
The fact that Mann’s pile of B.S. made it past “peer review” and garnered relatively little criticism from the climate “science” community Is a condemnation of the entire field. It’s an anti-scientific piece of garbage, if not actually fraudulent, which I think is closer to the truth.
This was fraud:
That’s from a lecture in which Prof. Richard Muller, a longtime climate alarmist who now describes himself as a lukewarmist, explained Mann’s “Nature trick” to “hide the decline” in proxy-derived temperature estimates:
That graph was the 1999 WMO climate report cover illustration. They carefully matched the colors and smoothed the splice points, to hide the splices.
The “decline” Phil Jones, Mann, etc. sought to “hide” was not a decline in temperatures. It was the decline in their “temperature proxies” during a time when actual temperatures rose. That inconsistency proved their methods were unreliable, so they hid it.
https://sealevel.info/wmo_1999_climate_report_cover_hockey_stick_jones_bradley_mann_hughes_rounded_splice_points.html
The proof of Mann’s involvement in that fraud is the Phil Jones / Michael Mann / Tim Osborn / Ray Bradley / Malcolm Hughes / Keith Briffa email conversation about using “Mike’s Nature Trick” (that’s Michael Mann) to “hide the decline” in proxy-derived temperature estimates, which, by their inconsistency with measured temperature data, falsified the proxy methods (which, as Dr. David Legates and then Prof. Muller both explained in 2004, were already dubious).
The fraud was a collaborative effort: It was Mann’s “trick,” but Osborn suggested it to Jones, and Jones actually drew the graph.
So Dr Mann was not the author of this graph used as a cover art on an obscure report. (Seriously, can you find any reference to this thing in the ten years between it’s publication and the CRU email leak? Thought not.)
You say the inconsistencies were ‘hidden’. If only they had properly labelled the graph axes and data sources on this cover art making it clear it was derived from both proxy and instrumental records and giving data sources so people could check. Oh wait, that is exactly what they did do, on the inside cover, which you have carefully not shown,
“Front cover: Northern Hemisphere temperatures were reconstructed for the past 1000 years (up to 1999) using palaeoclimatic records (tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc.), along with historical and long instrumental records. The data are shown as 50-year smoothed differences from the 1961–1990 normal. Uncertainties are greater in the early part of the millennium (see page 4 for further information). For more details, readers are referred to the PAGES newsletter (Vol. 7, No. 1: March 1999, also available at http://www.pages.unibe.ch) and the National Geophysical Data Center (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov). (Sources of data: P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa and T.J. Osborn, University of East Anglia, UK; M.E. Mann, University of Virginia, USA; R.S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts, USA; M.K. Hughes, University of Arizona, USA; and the Hadley Centre, The Met. Office).”
Seriously, this is some kind of scandal? Get real.
You’re right, by the standards of climate researchers, this is not a scandal. But for any honest scientist, this is fraud.
Get real.
1. This was not an IPCC Assssment Report or peer-reviewed literature, it was cover art. There is precisely zero reference to it between its publication in 1999 and the CRU leak a decade later.
2. The inside cover description (not referenced here – lying by omission) clearly indicated that the graphs were a combination of proxy and instrumental data, and gave the data sources. In other words if there was intent to commit fraud, they gave their intended ‘victims’ everything they needed to indict them. But nobody did, because nobody was ‘defrauded’, it is a ridiculous notion.
3. The ‘divergence problem’ has in fact been widely discussed and researched completely transparently, the first papers appeared 5 years before the WMO cover was published. Funny way to hide something.
There is considerably irony in pointing out that the damning evidence that the graph was fraudulent was printed on a page where it was unlikely to be seen by anyone focused on the graph itself and claiming that failing to disclose this is lying by omission.
Not including that information up front on the same page as the graph was lying by omission.
One can only imagine the discussion that lead to that decision.
“This is BS, do you think we could get into trouble for it?”
“Maybe. I know, let’s tell the truth on a completely different page”
“Oh I see, then it is unlikely we will get caught at all, but if we do, we can say we disclosed it and get off the hook”.
As I recall, that’s exactly how it went down. The image stuck in the minds of the entire planet, it was exposed by ClimateGate, when people started digging they found the deception and called it out. It was then, and only then, that the purveyors of lies said well yeah, we did do that completely misleading thing but we documented what we did to mislead everyone on an unrelated page so its really not misleading.
Pull the other one John Phillips
“As I recall, that’s exactly how it went down. The image stuck in the minds of the entire planet, it was exposed by ClimateGate, when people started digging they found the deception and called it out. It was then, and only then, that the purveyors of lies said well yeah, we did do that completely misleading thing but we documented what we did to mislead everyone on an unrelated page so its really not misleading.”
You are conflating this piece of cover art and its issues with the Hockey Stick studies, which have none of the same issues.
And on your divergence problem excuse John Phillips, thank you for posting that. So what you are saying is despite the divergence problem being well researched for 5 years before, they went ahead and published their graph anyway after discussing how to hide that exact issue in the graph using a visual trick to make is seem like something it wasn’t. IOW, by asserting that the divergence problem was well known, you are condemning the vary argument you purport to defend. Your logic is so tortured that even you don’t understand it!
The ‘divergence problem’ meant that the latter part of one of the curves did not reflect what the graph represents, that is, global temperatures. Anyone who looked only at the cover would have got an entirely accurate impression of global temperatures.
Anyone curious about the provenance of the data had only to open the booklet and read the inside cover where it was properly documented.
Really, you have to twist logic beyond pretzel shaped to find anything nefarious here. But do continue, it is free entertainment.
I know a John Phillips, he is an honurable man and retired Carnoustie Golf Links Superintendent. He did a great job on our world famous golf course.
This John Phillips? Something else!
John – the divergence problem as you your self asserted was that tree ring data frequently departed from the instrumental record, YOU are the one that claimed this was well known five years prior, now you want to claim it meant something else. Please pick which lie you want to stick with.
As to the inside cover, anytime you draw a graph and lable it, the reader assumes the lable reflects the provenance of the data. Putting it ANYWHERE ELSE is total and complete BS ,you know it, this forum knows it, anyone who examines both knows it. Not to mention that even the inside cover verbiage doesn’t make it clear.
You’re nothing more than a paid troll because no real person would try and tell me the sky is orange when I’m looking right at it and can see it is blue.
Plus PAID TROLL – Let’s assume the inside cover says what you claim. Anyone reading it would then have to have come to the conclusion that the graph was a useless piece of garbage that should never have been published.
So you’re now hoisted on your own petard. Whoever is paying you really should ask for a refund.
So misleading people with ‘cover art’ is honest behaviour? Hello?
‘hidden’ as in hide? Who introduced that verb into this whole fiasco… thereby creating this fiasco?
It’s cost hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of idiots have been motivated to senseless action by this graph. It is a tool of a multi-state sponsored misinformation effort. Nothing to see here/? Get real!
Muller, who claimed he was originally a skeptic and that his data caused him to become a climate alarmist is now lukewarmist?
Right…
Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in August 2013.
From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forces. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.
http://berkeleyearth.org/about/
The only people who are convinced by the Berkley Earth work, are those who are paid to be.
John Phillips wrote, “So Dr Mann was not the author of this graph used as a cover art on an obscure report. (Seriously, can you find any reference to this thing in the ten years between it’s publication and the CRU email leak? Thought not.)”
Mann was involved, right up to his crooked little eyebrows. Here’s an infamous email from Jones:
https://sealevel.info/FOIA/0942777075.txt
It begins, “Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,…”
“Mike” is Michael Mann.
You need to brush up on your Google Scholar search skills, too, John. Then you could find things like these references to the 1999 WMO climate document.
John Phillips wrote, “You say the inconsistencies were ‘hidden’. If only they had properly labelled the graph axes and data sources on this cover art making it clear it was derived from both proxy and instrumental records and giving data sources so people could check. Oh wait, that is exactly what they did do, on the inside cover…”
Our topic, today, is fraud, and it is a point of law, at least in the United States, that, “The fine print cannot take away what the large print gives.” In other words, an obscure truthful statement does not negate or make legal a more prominent deceptive statement.
In this case, the three traces in the graph were clearly labeled, very prominently, on the cover:
All three labels were brazen lies.
If they’d graphed what those labels SAID they graphed, there would have been no “hockey stick,” and it would have been obvious that their methodology was unreliable.
To hide that fact, from 1961 on, the Briffa trace was replaced by a slightly distorted graph of recent measured temperatures. (It was distorted to smooth & hide the splice point.)
Nowhere in the document was that fact disclosed.
From 1981 on, the Jones and Mann traces were replaced by slightly distorted graphs of recent measured temperatures. (They, too, were distorted to smooth & hide the splice points.)
Nowhere in the document was that disclosed, either.
Inside the cover we find this cryptic description:
There is no way to glean from that statement:
● the fact that graphs were spliced,
● nor the essential fact that the the proxy reconstructions were inconsistent with recent measured temperatures,
● nor the fact that the proxy reconstructions actually looked nothing at all like “hockey sticks.”
Nor is the last 18 years (for the Jones & Mann traces) what a reasonable reader assume is meant by “historical and long instrumental records.”
John Phillips wrote, “Seriously, this is some kind of scandal? Get real.”
Damn right it is a scandal. It was grossly dishonest, and extremely deceptive. All six of the conspirators should have lost their jobs over it, along with anyone else who knew about it and didn’t blow the whistle.
John Phillips wrote, “There is precisely zero reference to it between its publication in 1999 and the CRU leak a decade later.”
Actually, about 19 of the hits found by that Google Scholar search, above, were from before 2009.
John Phillips wrote, “The ‘divergence problem’ has in fact been widely discussed and researched completely transparently, the first papers appeared 5 years before the WMO cover was published.”
The funny thing is, I couldn’t find any of them. Will you please cite a few of those papers?
I did find one 1998 paper by Briffa, which mentioned a divergence problem before Jones et al created the fraudulent hockey stick:
Briffa et al, 1998:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.1998.0191
That’s all I’m aware of prior to Phil Jones’ infamous Tue, 16 Nov 1999 email:
There was another paper nearly a decade later:
D’Arrigo et al 2007:
https://sealevel.info/DArrigo_etal.pdf
The two papers reported opposite conclusions:
Briffa et al 1998 reported that forests were growing too fast for the actual temperatures.
D’Arrigo at al 2007 reported they were growing too slow for the actual temperatures.
(Either conclusion, of course, means that dendroclimatology is unreliable.)
Dave,
Excellent beat down of the climate clown.
Your references remind me of the excellent posts of Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.
You know, the McIntyre of McIntyre and McKitrick, the peer reviewed published scientific paper yet to be found incorrect in any way. But maligned by clown boy John by reference to looney CAGW fanatic sites. Quick search shows RealClimate slamming their paper, the article written by “Mike” in 2004. Who could “Mike” be?
You are making me blush, Drake. Steve McIntyre’s work is far, far beyond my humble efforts, but thank you for the very generous compliment.
You know, the McIntyre of McIntyre and McKitrick, the peer reviewed published scientific paper yet to be found incorrect in any way.
Complete Nonsense.
I see John is still trying to push the line that screaming you’re wrong, constitutes a rebutal.
So much baloney, so little time.
Firstly, these plots form no part of the academic literature. They were prepared as an illustration of global temperatures for the cover of a 10 page report on climate. You’ve been unable to find anyone referencing the cover in the ten years after publication. And it was the work of Phil Jones, not Michael Mann. Big shrug.
There is no way to glean from that statement:
● the fact that graphs were spliced,
● nor the essential fact that the the proxy reconstructions were inconsistent with recent measured temperatures,
● nor the fact that the proxy reconstructions actually looked nothing at all like “hockey sticks.”
Secondly there is nothing cryptic about the legend, it could not have been clearer: the graphs are of global temperature, constructed from a combination of proxy and instrumental data. Of course it is ‘spliced’ – how the flip else are you going to do it? You seem to be saying Mann 1999 aka The Hockey Stick looks nothing like a hockey stick. More baloney.
Instrumental data is used after the period covered by the proxies, or where the proxy data is known to be wrong. You seem to be saying they should have plotted a decline in temperatures even when we know they were rising. Why the heck would they do that? It is not the point of the graph.
You need to brush up on your Google Scholar search skills, too, John. Then you could find things like these references to the 1999 WMO climate document.
Yeah right. 44 hits. ‘Institutional framework and administrative systems for effective disaster risk governance – Perspectives of 2013 Cyclone Phailin in India’,’Tick-borne encephalitis in Sweden and climate change’. Still shrugging.
Actually, about 19 of the hits found by that Google Scholar search, above, were from before 2009.
Google tailors its search according to your history so I may get different results. Can you find one referencing the cover – which after all is the point – rather than the content? I’ll wait.
The funny thing is, I couldn’t find any of them. Will you please cite a few of those papers?
Taubes, G. (17 March 1995), “Is a Warmer Climate Wilting the Forests of the North?”, Science, 267 (5204): 1595, Bibcode:1995Sci…267.1595T, doi:10.1126/science.267.5204.1595, PMID 17808119.
Jacoby, G. C.; d’Arrigo, R. D. (June 1995), “Tree ring width and density evidence of climatic and potential forest change in Alaska”, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9 (2): 227, Bibcode:1995GBioC…9..227J, doi:10.1029/95GB00321
and there was the Royal Society paper and also the seminal
Briffa, Keith R.; Schweingruber, F. H.; Jones, Phil D.; Osborn, Tim J.; Shiyatov, S. G.; Vaganov, E. A. (12 February 1998), “Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes” (PDF), Nature, 391 (6668): 678, Bibcode:1998Natur.391..678B, doi:10.1038/35596,
Hidden in plain sight. Last time I checked 1998 came before 1999.
Typical reaction of a warmunist towards anything that gets in the way of his religious devotions.
Yeah billions of people have been persuaded that the temperature of the earth is rising uncontrollably by that graph but your rebuttal is “well no one officially cited it”.
Again, whoever is paying you isn’t getting very good value for their money.
“Yeah billions of people have been persuaded that the temperature of the earth is rising uncontrollably by that graph but your rebuttal is “well no one officially cited it”.”
No way billions of people read that booklet.
Are you quite serious? Do you really think that people have to read the booklet to be influenced by the graph? The whole point is that many many people saw that graph WITHOUT reading the booklet or your ignorant get out of jail free “well we had this thing on the inside cover where we know d*mn well no one will read it unless we point them at it” card. It was used to convince politicians all over the world, it was used to convince the press all over the world. It was a picture is worth a million words moment, the whole POINT of it was to rely on the picture alone.
Which is why it might be the most pernicious lie in human history.
You really cannot tell the difference between a graph on the cover of a relatively obscure booklet and the Hockey Stick studies as cited by the IPCC?
Not much I can do about that.
No way billions of people saw that graph. You are confusing it with the Hockey Stick study of Mann et al., which had none of the issues raised here.
I am not confusing it at all. They were two different graphs that arrived at the same lie by different means. You are right, Mann’s graph didn’t have the same issues. It had different issues. But they were both lies and they reinforced each other.
But you’ve only demonstrated the issues with the booklet cover.
AHA! SO YOU ADMIT THAT THE BOOKLET COVER HAD ISSUES!
Now your defense is well, yeah, the booklet cover had issues but I didn’t debunk the other graph? The other graph was not part of the discussion except for your claim I was confusing the two!
Do you enjoy making a repeated fool of yourself?
“where the proxy data is known to be wrong”
If the proxy data is known to be wrong in some places, how can we trust it in other places (in ANY place)? If we have data showing it is RIGHT in those places, why not just use THAT data instead?
Well, broadly that is what happens. Divergence only affects some tree ring data in some high-latitude areas, so there is no need to discard all tree-ring proxies. Note that only one of the three plots – the Briffa paper – suffered from the problem and Briffa warned against using this data after 1960, which is why Phil Jones, who made the graphs, switched in the instrumental data. To do otherwise would have been perverse. Had this been for a journal article, the substitution would probably either not been done or made more explicit, but it was not for a journal article it was COVER ART.
“Divergence only affects some tree ring data in some high-latitude areas, so there is no need to discard all tree-ring proxies”
How do we know that for certain? What was the tree ring data compared to in order to reach that conclusion?
Correct.
The tree ring data they didn’t like was selected-out. “Screening”. Screening for the trees that tell you what you want to hear. The others are discarded, and a post-hoc justification found later, when needed.
It violates one of the basic principles of science, as I was taught it. If this was done in clinical trials of pharmaceutical products, the company directors might be looking at jail sentences. In climate tree-ology, they get plaudits and prizes.
OMFG John! Not showing the data which showed that the data was invalid was the right thing to do and anything else would have been perverse? Did you really say that? Well it is there in black and white for all to see so I guess you did.
You know how I know that the whole global warming panic is a total pile of bull? I know because even paid trolls like you can’t come and argue your position without looking like total fools. There was a time when members of the Union of Concerned Scientists used to drop in here on a regular basis. They made utter fools of themselves over and over again and now they are too embarrassed to show up. Thank you for reminding me of that!
“Not showing the data which showed that the data was invalid was the right thing to do and anything else would have been perverse?”
The invalid data was the tree ring data after around 1960.
So you’ve gone from arguing that showing the invalid data would have been perverse to telling us which data was invalid.
Please mods, surely with all our oil money we must be able to buy some trolls capable of carrying on a lucent discussion?
Bravo!
‘Nature’ being a magazine in the field.
You can read the f-kin paper and know it’s fraud you simpleton.
He can’t back down because Stein has filed a counter-suit.
It is Steyn and the countersuit was dismissed three years ago.
But don’t let that stop you from resorting to personal abuse.
It is Steyn and the countersuit was dismissed 3 years ago.
But why let facts stop you from resorting to personal abuse?
Discovery is far from complete. The discovery for the previous cases has been resolved (one way or another) but has not been resolved for the central premise in the Steyn case. As it stands, discovery in this case has yet to uncover if the hockey stick paper was a legal fraud, not necessarily a scientific fraud. It could get very interesting, very quickly from this point on.
Phillips has no idea what ‘Discovery’ entails, apparently. Of course documents have been exchanged, and no doubt, incomplete, and the defense has petitioned, through interlocutory hearings, to provide specific documents (not forthcoming). However, in discovery the parties get to directly cross examine each other. This only takes place after trial date has been set. Mann’s “team” tries to overwhelm with volume and pretends the missing information is found within.
Of course documents have been exchanged, and no doubt, incomplete, and the defense has petitioned, through interlocutory hearings, to provide specific documents (not forthcoming).
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022021/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/
You’re still confused or being disingenuous. I don’t care how many documents Mann’s lawyers submitted. It’s all show and window dressing and intended to slow the process to avoid trial. The parties are required to produce all documentation to be relied on in trial, regardless. They must also produce all material ordered during interlocutory hearings. In 1 million documents it’s near impossible to find anything missing
Quit posting nonsense.
Exchange of documents has nothing to do with Examination for Discoveries, which is taken under oath and in person. The transcript is then added to sworn testimony at trial. Failing to disclose in discoveries will earn you contempt of court or even a charge of perjury.
Insideclimatenews.org 😉
According to the climate science gang, the accuracy of any site can be determined by how well it supports them.
Please give credit to John Phillips for coming on here. It is so symptomatic of the cowardice of the alarmists that they cannot debate their religion.
I will defend John to the death for engaging in debate.
He’s not debating. He’s a well-paid troll.
That’s very interesting reasoning. Mann’s team found no evidence of fraud perpetrated by their client, ERGO there IS no fraud!!!
Inherent bias, self-serving conclusions?……naaahhhh.
John, based on comments below, would you agree that discovery is not complete?
It is not just me who is saying that, it is Steyn himself.
“Michael Mann’s ill-conceived and baseless eight-year-old libel suit against cultural commentator Mark Steyn has gone on long enough. Discovery, now over, has shown that this suit is not about defamation. Nor is it, as this Court has ruled, about “climate change” or “science,” Oct. 22, 2019 Order at 1-2. “The Court is particularly careful and mindful not to step into the substance or merit of the policy debate on global warming. . . . The broader question of global warming is never before this Court. . . . Plaintiff is not the scientist representing the entirety of the science behind global warming.” “
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf
See also this article in Inside Climate News
“Now, with discovery in the case concluded, Mann is asking the court to rule that the conservative outlets have failed to summon any evidence to challenge the validity of his science. […]
“For years, the defendants have been boasting that they wanted to get us into court so they could question us under oath. For years they have been boasting that the documents they would subpoena from us would prove that the hockey stick research was improperly manipulated,” Mann said, through his attorneys. “They came up with nothing. And they came up with nothing because their statements were absolutely baseless, to the extent that even their own witnesses had to acknowledge that there was no fraud, no deception, no corruption, no misconduct.”
Mr. Phillips: Your attribution of the first statement to “Steyn himself” is not Steyn himself. Your work here is done, as your Mann-love is now thoroughly exposed. Time to change your name, ’cause seeing “John Phillips” at the top of the comment tells us all we need to know about the content.
Mr. Phillips: Your attribution of the first statement to “Steyn himself” is not Steyn himself.
It is taken from Steyn’s motion for Summary Judgement. Granted it was probably drafted by a lawyer, and it is in the nature of these things that people are referred to in the third person, but there is no way Steyn did not sign off on these words.
Really is fascinating how a lie becomes reality when spoken by a warm-monger.
Really?
None of this communications, code, data, results, formulae has hit hit the web where many people are deeply interested in exact coding threads, the formulae used, the statistical handling of data, etc.
Mann may have provided “items”, that doesn’t make them germane to the case.
Discovery hardly means you have to post the materials on the web. All the proxy data used by Dr Mann (et al) was made available shortly after the publication of the HS studies, for example, here.
There is no obligation to release computer code under NSF rules. It is not that useful anyway, it is far better to write your own code applying the same methods and formulae – and several people have done this and got the same results as Dr Mann.
I do hope you are not too heavilyinvested in the idea that this multiply-confirmed study is miraculously going to be being falsified by a 20 year old email….
Giggle. Seriously? First of all, NSF rules have nothing to do with a legal action so that’s just a silly argument. Second, code written by other people is also irrelevant. The code is evidence, if it was permissible (better in your words!) to write your own code it would be tantamount to writing your own evidence. Courts don’t take kindly for that.
You appeared to be a paid troll. Whoever is paying you should demand their money back. But keep writing, you’re a hoot!
Agreed David!
I burst into a belly laugh when I read Phillips specious sophistry.
Lol…Mann is a 💩
Million items 😉
Where in the world do these SFBs come from? No evidence. No data. Parroting the standard Marxist line. We know what Marxists do and are capable of, so why does this individual carry their water?
A million items? So the strategy was to disguise the fact that you have no needle by claiming it resides inside the proffered haystack.
You have reviewed over a million pieces of evidence and discovered no fraud occurred?
If not, since Steyn and his attorneys have not made this claim are you relying on Mann for your assertion?
Moreover, from personal experience with Mann-like opponents, absence of evidence, if it does occur, is more likely due to sanitation of the records than nonexistence.
String Theory isn’t fraud either, but it also isn’t a real physical theory, or possibly even science. The difference being that nobody working on string theory states that string theory is a fact, supported by real universe evidence, like say “tree strings”!
Yes, as I recall it, Mark countersued for 20million + costs + whatever the judge recommended for a punitive sum, locking Mann into a trial. If Mann withdraws the complaint (his modus operandi – the case is the punishment for the defendant), it’s a slam dunk for the countersuit and the ‘Defence fund’ will have to dole out damages and costs much to their dismay and shock (they, not knowing Steyn’s gutsiness and brass, will be duly punished and drained for the adventure). However, if Mann goes forward with the trial, he is obliged to present all his data and the statistical processes he used, including p-Hacking, overweighting hockeystick making proxies,etc. revealing the frodiness of his scientific work. Their is no third option.
I guess ego/hubris blocked Mann’s doing a due diligence on the ‘no-name’ foreigner and his brilliant exploits in the Canadian courts.
So Mann has neatly ensnared his gonads betwixt the rock and the hard place. Neat trick.
BBBiigg rock!
Very hard place.
Agreed!
Gary, Very interesting. Lawyers are also liable if the original lawsuit was improper.
Good!
Maybe they can explain why they had to file so many amendments to outright errors in Mann’s submissions, e.g. Nobel Peace Prize winner, Many investigations cleared Mann, many peer reviewed replications of Mann’s hockeystick (remember such replications must me independent)..
The add in Mann’s many very public outrageous climate alarmism claims. Shy introvert Mann has veered his career has into injecting himself into extrovert public climate alarmism on TV.
Just don’t get between Mann and a TV camera…
“it’s a slam dunk for the countersuit and the ‘Defence fund’ will have to dole out damages and costs”
You mean like how they did in the Ball case?
There are few “excellent” malicious prosecution cases.
Malicious prosecution is notoriously difficult to prove, even by only a preponderance of the evidence and even in a case this frivolous.
The reason typically given for such a high bar is that the courts shouldn’t discourage litigation. Yeah, like that’s a problem. When the legal elements to prove MP are as high as they are and ‘loser pays’ is not a thing, frivolous and punitive litigation is anything but discouraged.
.
The reality of AGW is that CO2 has caused at most a few tenths of a degree of warming, all of which was highly beneficial. That and the fact that CO2 makes plants grow bigger and healthier.
As to the merits of the Hockey Stick, it never had any. It was proven out of the gate that Mann used proxy that had nothing to do with temperature and massaged them with statistical methods that had no validity.
Ah, the junior employee defence, admitting low quality and lack of leadership.
I am very strong against Mr. ‘Nature Trick’ Mann, but am very wary of such a defence as it absolves an organization from responsibility for quality. A local taxi cartel operation pulled that with a regulator after advertising itself using the name of a new competitor – must be nice as a junior employee to be able to spend money without anyone checking. Of course it showed lack of leadership in hiring in the first place.
During all this time he was “suffering” from his claim of being defamed, made a pile of money in the process with his books and speaking engagements.
Job done.
From the standpoint of those Mann considers his “peers”, i.e., hard left rabid Warmunists, if anything Steyn’s article enhanced Mann’s reputation, so again and still, he has no actionable damages.
He didn’t lose his job, Tenure and Professorship the entire time, continues to publish and be on talk shows.
His wealth increased significantly.
What did he actually suffer from?
That’s fraud
I can’t wait for Manniacal to prove he received more disapproving glances than before and exactly how Mann knows a disapproving glance and how did he track them?
Did Mann keep a “disapprove glances” diary, or perhaps a rejection diary?
There is a circular argument! Mann will have to prove that Mann’s lackluster reputation is solely caused by a couple of sentences Mark Steyn wrote in an online article… To get their he’ll have to prove that many people actually read the article before Mann filed his lawsuit.
A) First Mann will have to prove that Penn State’s new directors and President along with their responsibility in cleaning up the previous administration’s obsessions and perversions.
a) That this new Penn State Administration did not block Mann’s grants and awards because of their restructure and changes to departments.
B) Grants are a funny thing. A person has to apply for grants and often defend their rationale for the grant.
C) Grants are funny in another way; the grantee is expected to file progress reports, expenditures and actually accomplish/produce something and then to file a final report and conclusions.
a) It will be interesting to see every Grant that Mann received at Penn State, how he managed those grants; what Mann purchased with those grants; what Mann spent for salaries and exactly what did each employee do to earn that salary; grant progress reports; final grant submissions and accomplishments.
b) All to prove it wasn’t Mann’s mismanagement and lack of real progress that harmed Mann grant funding where Mann received a paltry “just under $1 million” for four years.
D) Next will be the questions regarding Mann’s overall earnings since suing Mark Steyn.
a) That should invoke quite a discussion as to actual harm if Mann’s take home salary is unchanged
b) The years following Mann’s dismal “just under $1 million” four years will also be up for discussion.
In detail!
Popcorn futures!
The data creep.
If I remember the details of the case, Steyn was sued for repeating the line that Mann was like the coach who belonged in the State pen rather than Penn State.
I think Dr Tim Ball was the one who said that.
That’s right.
And a great line it is.
I think the issue was the exoneration given to Prof Mann was from the same internal review folks that had exonerated the PSU football program from the Sandusky scandal.
An exoneration that did not investigate anything.
That and referring to the hockey stick paper as fraudulent whilst also referring to the Sandusky whitewash team. One of the central tenets of the case is, if the hockey stick was a fraud, then Steyn was correct, within his rights to refer to it as such and it was a fair parallel to draw between the two investigations. The judge may be expected to rule on whether the balance of evidence (if Mann complies with Steyn’s discovery requests) shows legal fraud in regards to the hockey stick work. It’s going to get interesting now – pass the popcorn.
Given Mann’s behavior since the Hockey Stick paper came out, especially the discovery that his factor analysis yielded a hockey stick from red noise. Mann has only doubled down on his original claims, so I would conclude either fraud or the worst kind of Noble Cause Corruption possible.
the discovery that his factor analysis yielded a hockey stick from red noise.
Hockey Stick Myth Alert!
The claim that his algorithm generates hockey sticks from random noise is untrue.
It came from McIntyre and McKitrick. Red noise is random or ‘white’ noise that has been treated to simulate a particular dataset. Clearly the red noise should have the same statistical profile as the data you are simulating. In fact M&M used data with an unrealistic degree of persistence. (Wegman, with an astonishing lack of diligence simply parroted the M&M result without trying to reproduce it independently. Professor David Ritson wrote to Wegman asking for details of the noise generation and is still waiting for a reply. Where is an auditor when you really need one?).
Even with this data, the results had a tiny magnitude compared to the real hockey stick and half pointed down, not up. So M&M amended the code to ‘mine’ for hockey stick shapes and only plotted a selection from the 1% with the highest ‘hockey stick index’.
If you run enough simulations you can find any pattern you want eventually, so it is not that meaningful an exercise, a better question is: using red noise with the same variance and lag-one autocorrelation coefficients as the actual North American ITRDB series, and applying the MBH98 PCA convention, how likely is one to produce the “Hockey Stick” pattern from chance alone? The analysis has in fact been done:
“The Monte Carlo experiments were performed for both the MBH98 (non-centered) and MM (centered) PCA conventions. This analysis showed that the “Hockey Stick” pattern is highly significant in comparison with the expectations from random (red) noise for both the MBH98 and MM conventions. In the MBH98 convention, the “Hockey Stick” pattern corresponds to PC#1 , and the variance carried by that pattern is more than 5 times what would be expected from chance alone under the null hypothesis of red noise (blue curve at x=1: y = 0.07), significant well above the 99% confidence level (the first 2 PCs are statistically significant at the 95% level in this case). For comparison, in the MM convention, the “Hockey Stick” pattern corresponds to PC#4, and the variance carried by that pattern is about 2 times what would be expected from chance alone, and still clearly significant (the first 5 PCs are statistically significant at the 95% level in this case).
So the facts deal a death blow to yet another false claim by McIntyre and McKitrick.”
Sources https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/
See also: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf
https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
https://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/
Nice try, but the hockey stick reconstruction of temperature history is still preposterous, based on history.
Not even a nice try, his RealClimate link leads to post by, guess who? Mike.
Mann does seem to be an expert BSA-bull shit artist
Hello Michael. It is Michael isn’t it? We haven’t seen you for a while. LOL
John Phillips,
There are formal descriptions of the differences between red noise and white noise. A simple one is here –
lect8-notes.dvi (washington.edu)
You are claiming that M&M doctored their red noise examples to fit their story.
In the absence of evidence to show this, you place yourself at risk of accusations similar to those faced by Dr Mann.
Heck, John, Steve Mc wrote a devastating series of blogs at Climate Audit on this issue, some of which I added to at the time. I found no evidence of him trying to force a result. It was a straight forward, forensic examination by a most capable person.
Another example of straight-forward analysis was Steve Mc dismantling the Dr Mann claim that several investigations cleared him if misconduct, when some of the investigations Dr Mann quoted with approval did not even involve him. See, for example,
Mann Misrepresents the UK Commons Committee « Climate Audit
and another half-dozen CA posts linked to it. Geoff S
You are claiming that M&M doctored their red noise examples to fit their story. In the absence of evidence to show this, you place yourself at risk of accusations similar to those faced by Dr Mann.
No, I am saying their red noise had unrealistic persistence. Not necessarily deliberate, but it nullified the claims based on it. The evidence is in the link I provided, an email thread from Professor David Ritson to Wegman….
” To facilitate a reply I attach the Auto-Correlation Function used
by the M&M to generate their persistent red noise simulations for their figures shown by you in your Section 4 (this was kindly provided me by M&M on Nov 6 2004 ). The black values are the ones actually used by M&M. They derive directly from the seventy North American tree proxies, assuming the proxy values
to be TREND-LESS noise.
Surely you realized that the proxies combine the signal components on which is superimposed the noise? I find it hard to believe that you would take data with obvious trends, would then directly evaluate ACFs without removing the trends, and then finally assume you had obtained results for the proxy specific noise! You will notice that the M&M inputs purport to show
strong persistence out to lag-times of 350 years or beyond.
Your report makes no mention of this quite improper M&M procedure used to obtain their ACFs. Neither do you provide any specification data for your own results that you contend confirm the M&M results. Relative to your Figure 4.4 you state
“One of the most compelling illustrations that M&M have roduced
is created by feeding red noise (AR(1) with parameter = .2 into the MBH algorithm”.
In fact they used and needed the extraordinarily high persistances contained in the attatched figure to obtain their `compelling’ results.
Obviously the information requested below is essential for replication and evaluation of your committee’s results. I trust you will provide it in timely fashion”
Wegman never replied to this request for details on data and method, or ‘stonewalled’ in Auditor-speak. And no, McIntyre does not get to mark his own homework.
By far the most interesting thing about the Penn State investigation is that nobody ever raised a formal complaint against Dr Mann. That’s right – despite the thousands of words posted online, when, after the CRU mail leak, the opportunity arose to put their accusations against Dr Mann arguments to the relevant authorities for rigourous scrutiny outside the safe space of a sympathetic blog, none of his critics stepped forward.
“At the time of initiation of the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct had been submitted to any University official. Therefore, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell, and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth but rather her best effort to reduce to reviewable allegations the many different
accusations that were received from parties outside of the University. ”
There is no there, there.
John P,
You write “Even with this data, the results had a tiny magnitude compared to the real hockey stick and half pointed down, not up.”
This is the end of the game. A statistical method that produces this result, especially a home-made variant, should not have been used, particularly with a topic that had the capacity to cause national policy changes for global warming.
In the usual course of events, new statistical methods would be tested in theoretical statistical publications, floated to see what experts think of them. Only when they become mainstream should they be used for publications like the MBH hockey stick papers.
That is the old fashioned, time proven way. To the extent that it clashes with the loose thinking of post-modernism, the latter should be quickly forgotten as a fad that failed.
Geoff S
Sorry, but judge after judge, and indeed Steyn himself has argued that this case is not about the merits of this (now 20 year old) paleoclimate study. Here is an extract from the most recent CEI summary judgement…
“This is not a lawsuit over the existence or legitimacy of climate change. Nor is it a lawsuit over the veracity of the hockey stick graph”
And here is Steyn (referring to himself in the third person)
“Michael Mann’s ill-conceived and baseless eight-year-old libel suit against cultural commentator Mark Steyn has gone on long enough. Discovery, now over, has shown that this suit is not about defamation. Nor is it, as this Court has ruled, about “climate change” or “science,” Oct. 22, 2019 Order at 1-2. “The Court is particularly careful and mindful not to step into the substance or merit of the policy debate on global warming. . . . The broader question of global warming is never before this Court. . . . Plaintiff is not the scientist representing the entirety of the science behind global warming.” Id. at 6-7 (italics in original). Rather, as the Court has also found: The main idea of Defendant [Steyn]’s article is the inadequate and ineffective investigations conducted by Pennsylvania State University into their employees, including Jerry Sandusky and Plaintiff [Michael E Mann].”
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf
Re-read exactly what I said, please, not what you think I said. If, as Steyn believes, the hockey stick is fraudulent then he is within his rights to draw a fair and just parallel between both investigations. If the judge in the case holds that Steyn was, indeed, right to draw a parallel between the two investigations then the only conclusion to draw will be that the courts judge the hockey stick to be fraudulent. They are linked.
What colour is the sky on your world?
We wonder the same of you. Mann is a fraud.
Steyn may win the case, based on the principle that Mann has to demonstrate Steyn acted with ‘actual malice’, which Steyn can disprove by claiming that at the time he genuinely believed Mann’s work to be fraudulent. But note that Steyn is retreating even from this line of defence, claiming his beef was with the enquiries, not Mann’s science.
But no judge in this case is going to express an opinion on whether Mann did or did not actually commit any kind of manipulation or dishonesty. That opinion would have zero relevance to the legal question at issue. The judge who granted CEI their summary judgement could not have been clearer:
Ah, but I am breaking my own rule about debating with delusional people.
No, it is a lawsuit that is an attempt to silence Mr. Steyn. It should have never made it to trial since there is an anti-slapp law in DC that was disregarded by the first judge.
NOW it is 2 lawsuits, one a SLAPP lawsuit by Mann, the second a punitive lawsuit by Steyn to receive legal fees and restitution from Mann for filing the SLAPP lawsuit in the first place. If all goes well, Mann, his lawyers and whoever has funded this vexatious lawsuit will be very sorry the first judge did not dismiss he case.
Although Mann has refused to pay the Canadian judgment, and I don’t think Ball has any to collect, he will not be able to avoid paying Steyn in US courts.
And Penn State of the state penn continues to employ that slime ball. Any respectable institution would not renew an employment contract with someone of such dishonorable ill repute. But it is Penn State, so what else would you expect?
John,
In your words, Steyn may win the case in which he has said two things-
(1) That the Penn State investigation which purported to exonerate Mann was flawed,
(2) That although Mann was not a ‘kiddy fiddler’ like Sandusky, he was a ‘data fiddler’.
In his complaint in 2012 against Steyn,Mann states the following which is misleading-
“…every such investigation – and every replication of Dr.Mann’s work – has concluded that Dr.Mann’s research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.”
All of the investigations found serious problems with Mann’s work.
The National Research Council conducted the investigation as the working arm of the US National Academy of Sciences.
The National Research Council concluded ( 2006,p.4) that little confidence could be placed in Mann’s primary conclusion that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millenium”( Mann and Bradley 1999).
While Mann was not shown to have committed academic fraud (as academic fraud requires proof of intent to have falsified his data or his statistical analysis to deceive)his hockey stick was incorrect and his methods were explained poorly in his papers.
As Andy May has pointed out in Ch.5 of his “ Politics and Climate Change: a History”, dealing with Mann’s lawsuits,Mann’s refusal to share his data and the details of his methods slowed the natural scientific process and allowed the IPCC and Gore to continue to promote his flawed temperature reconstruction.
So you are saying that at the end of the day, and after three lost litigation exercises,there will be no ruling on the validity of the Hockey Stick but Steyn will likely have protected free speech in accusing Mann of data manipulation.
This underlines the entitlement of further writers to repeat the accusation that Mann’s data is flawed and questions remain as to his actions.
Why would any scientist and any backers he may have follow such a litigation path?
“The National Research Council concluded ( 2006,p.4) that little confidence could be placed in Mann’s primary conclusion that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millenium”( Mann and Bradley 1999).
Inaccurate and selective quote, see this from the conclusion.
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation
of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above and also the pronounced changes in a variety of
local proxy indicators described in previous chapters.
Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period over the preceding millennium.
(They later made clear that by ‘plausiable’ they meant more likely than not. Note also that this panel stated that the R2 statistic has no merit in the context of climate reconstructions, which makes all the fuss about non-disclosure highly amusing)
All of the investigations found serious problems with Mann’s work.
Nope. Wahl and Ammann found that criticisms that had any merit made a negligible impact, and those that might have had an impact had no merit.
As Andy May has pointed out in Ch.5 of his “ Politics and Climate Change: a History”, dealing with Mann’s lawsuits,Mann’s refusal to share his data and the details of his methods slowed the natural scientific process and allowed the IPCC and Gore to continue to promote his flawed temperature reconstruction.
Andy May (andymaypetrophysicist.com) is more than happy to make stuff up, when it suits. Dr Mann shared his data as soon as he was able (a small amount was proprietary or unpublished at the time ISTR). Many researchers have had no problems reproducing his reconstruction from the methods provided.
Leaving out data 😉
Mr. Phillips: I implore you to stick to your rule. In your view, we are all delusional, so don’t debate us. Instead, debate a liar. You can do that while playing solitaire.
Anyone believing a court is going to rule on the merits of the Hockey Stick is delusional, in my view.
In that he, Mann, molested the data.
Sing it!
Oh he’s once, twice,
Three times a shady
Global Warming/Climate Fraudypants…
Very Steyn-esk. He will be proud of you.
Has a soldier in combat ever sued the Army because he shot himself in the foot? No. Yet Mann seems to relish in the idea.
Yes. Private Seven Toes McGurk, the boogie woogie bugle boy of Company B.
And is there not a counter suit? Status?
DC Superior Court granted Mann’s motion to dismiss Steyn’s countersuit in 2019:
http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2019/20190829_docket-2012-CA-008263-B_order.pdf
The US “justice system” appears to be awfully short on the justice part.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Never has that aphorism been more strongly felt.
As a defense attorney, I agree with you.
DC is not a good venue for Steyn.
It shouldn’t matter, but we know it does. Rather scary when you realize DC is the seat of American law.
So we have a Tom Swiftie, the “Justice System” provides no justice, nor is it a legitimate system. Am I reading this correctly?
I’d say that’s a fair approximation. Mind you, this is far from a new state of affairs. Dickens’ ‘Bleak House‘ is about a court case that takes place over years … Jarndyce v. Jarndyce eventually eats up the entire estate, in legal costs, of the two parts of the Jarndyce family disputing the will.
Been that way for a LONG time, as I’m sure you know, Rory
Steyn’s counterclaims were narrowly construed based on the anti-SLAPP statutes. Not being a lawyer I can’t speak to all the principals involved, but the court’s reasoning based on the facts presented in their write-up seemed sound. The court must have been really annoyed because the claims were dismissed “with prejudice”, meaning they can’t be resurrected at a later date.
Counter for 20million, costs, and punitive at the judges discretion. Mann was bankrolled by Resources Defend Fund which may find itself insolvent, having expected Mike to withdraw the complaint and pay costs of a million or so.
On another topic, WordPress is now blocking me from posting any comments on Climate Etc., where I’ve been a forum participant for more than ten years.
All of my comments, even those whose text couldn’t possibly violate a screening algorithm, are being deleted before they even get to moderation.
IMHO, it’s only a matter of time before C-Etc is forced off of its current hosting platform.
Where could that blog go if WordPress restrictions prevent it from being a forum for honest discussion of contrasting opinions?
You can host your own server. It isn’t that difficult. Hillary put an Exchange server in her home bedroom closet.. easy peasy.
Mr. babcock: Well, yeah, but she had nearly unlimited IT resources to set up, and the CIA for disposal.
Yeah, good luck with that… You have no idea the hell that awaits you.
See: Andrew Torba
Try the Guardian. You only last 10 days at the most.
It’s hard to decide which is worse – idiots like Mann who get away with lying through their teeth, or the “justice system” that takes ten years to do two hours worth of actual work.
Probably the slow justice system, because lots of people get paid lots of money in that 10 years. Mann doesn’t get any more or any less for lying.
What do you mean? Mann was given an entire career, wealth and notoriety from lying. He’d just be a bald, chubby little nobody without his “hockey stick”.
Then maybe it is a toss up.
He is that, anyway.
“Way back in early 2013, when the healthy glow of late middle-age had not yet faded from my now wizened cheeks…”
Wow…this has all certainly become a saga; I’m in my
40’s, 50’s, 60’s now.Persevere,
V/C
Jeff F
In this new world where truth is lies, where up is down, where actual justice is now injustice, (I would say where white is black, but no – smiley face), it seems anything can happen.
I fear the timing is not with Steyn now. With the change in gov’t and the totally judicially and morally corrupt system combined with the ‘green new deal’ insanity the trial judge will have been instructed to side with Mann. Steyn will be lucky if he’s only deported,
I do wonder what his legacy will be.
Fake hockey stick graph, and fake Nobel award.
A hero in a comic opera I’m writing:
He is the very model of a Modern Useful Idiot
He’s got lots of bogus data for the UN Secretariat
etc. etc.
I’m going to call it “The Pirates of Penn State”. Gonna have to make room for the Grammy Awards.
Will you have Linda Ronstadt sing for the part of manniacal?
Or will you find a bald chubby toad-like nobody who can sing?
Hey Obama won a peace prize and droned brown people in the Middle East.
Makes me wonder what the damage dollar amount would be for each disapproving glances?
Surely, in a just world, any potential damage would have to be paid in virtual dollars!
He may have to discount these by the disapproving glances he received before the suit. Read Mark’s book on “…A Disgrace to the Profession” to see what high powered colleagues think of him.
Do we have witnesses who can attest to these disapproving glances around town?
In American Sign Language (ASL), the “L” sign as made by the extend thumb and extended first finger (photoshopped, I believe, to be in front of Michael Mann in the above article’s lead-in photo), when applied to the forehead, is meant as ASL slang to indicate loser.
Moreover, such signs when touched to the tip of the nose, can be interpreted to be adding the emphasis of “distasteful, disgusting or ‘icky’ “.
You can take it from here . . .
Mann fancies himself the new Cassandra, but there’s nobody in the horse.
I’m struggling to understand Mann pushing this nonsense forward. Already lost 3 times? I’m tempted to think he is a sadist who likes to be spanked (not that I know anything about that).
That is pretty obvious. Sadists like doing the spanking and masochists like to be spanked. Sado-masochism is, apparently, a way of having your cake and eating it, vis-a-vis the spank in question.
providing the cake is spiked with nails
I see Mann as an incompetent sadist. But then incompetence is the only thing Mann is any good at!
Well, you know what the sadist did to the masochist: Nothing.
*brrrrmmm-chink*
Three words—NPD (narcissistic personality disorder)
Mark Steyn,
As quoted in the above article,
“Dr. Mann asserts that his reputation was harmed in the community and that he began to receive disapproving glances around town after the articles were published.”,
I do believe would be easily countered in a court-of-law by simply pointing out the fact that Dr. Michael Mann was elected to be a member of the “prestigious” National Academy of Sciences in April 2020, long after the subject articles were published.
I very much doubt that the inhabitants of whichever city mann resides would know who he is by sight. Maybe the townspeople just find his appearance disgusting. I know I do.
Mann cannot win and Steyn cannot lose. Mann is a public figure under NYT v Sullivan. Therefore he has to show that (a) what Steyn said was false, and (b) done with actual malice.
With respect to (a) it is true that the same Penn State process that exonerated Mann also exhonerated Spannier, who is now in prison over the Sandusky affair.
Steyn wittily pointing that out does not make it any less true.
With respect to (b) Mann cannot use Steyn’s A Disgrace to the Profession as evidence, because all Steyn did was cite the opinions of 100 of Mann’s peers.
Mann will therefore withdraw after refusing discovery so Steyn can sue for costs.
Mann will therefore withdraw after refusing discovery so Steyn can sue for costs.
Discovery is complete, Mann complied with all requests, supplying over a million items.
do you have a link to that, please?
tia
He read it in the Guardian.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022021/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/
Inside Climate News is just the Guardian by another name. Very pro-Mann . . . any reason for them to “stretch the truth” a bit?
They make an assertion without evidence which you lap up
Do you have any real evidence for this assertion or is it just pie in the sky wish full thinking?
An assertion IS evidence when you agree with the assertion…
JP, have not re-researched it, but a couple of years ago Steyn’s specific discovery request was stayed until resolution of the by then separated CEI case. The discovery you refer to, if correct, did not apply to Steyn.
Mann has never been subjected to Examination for Discovery. For one, Discoveries is given under oath and is added to sworn testimony … and is only undertaken after a trial date is set. The Discovery transcript is part of the trial record. Mann has avoided setting of trial dates. He will not allow himself to be subjected to direct examination.
Steyn himself says discovery is complete.
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf
That was in reference to the request for “Summary Judgement”.
Apparently court notes for Mark Steyn, not actual writing by Steyn.
You believe he did not sign off on his own submission?
JP, it is problematic that Michael Mann has written even a million words for publication.
As to “supplying” a million “items” during legal discovery: pffttfppfff!
It’s the baffle them with bullsh_t approach.
Just like Hillary and many other leftists have done. They printed out everything! Copied paper files, copied incoming/outgoing newsletters, copied advertisements they received, copied papers in the trash, etc.
Until they had stacks of paper many feet high, then they handed over this trash to their opponents.
2,000 reams of paper, all intended to burden the other legal team, not answer any of the discovery questions.
Exchange of documents is NOT Discovery. It’s a completely different aspect of the process. Discovery only occurs once a trial date is fixed. It entails the parties interviewing their opposite number under oath and the minutes are typed, recorded and added to the documents under risk of perjury, as they are part of sworn testimony.
Documents are nothing more than what the parties will rely on in court. for their own case, nothing more. Mann’s lawyers have no interest in providing evidence that could be prejudicial to their client. Of course they offered an unreasonable pile of nonsense, artfully missing all self-damning evidence. That’s where Discoveries comes in.
So we can count legal procedures as another area about which John knows nothing, and works hard to keep himself ignorant in.
Swamping inquirers with tons of bumpf seems to be a standard ploy by “The Team”
Remember that Climategate email where the Director of the Australian BoM boasted to the other members of the cabal that in response to a reasonable request for historic Temps records he “snowed them with piles of unsorted numbers that would take years to make sense of” (or words to that effect).
Million and one 😉
And judges cannot be prosecutors unless they decide to be, i.e. Sullivan. I have zero faith in our legal system to actually be a self-consistent system.
Keep at him, Mark. This will all come to an end in your favor…………eventually.
Regards,
Bob
But, in hi lifetime?
Mark Steyn looks fit and in shape…
Mann? No one describe Mann as fit and in shape.
The Left has law firms and organizations like ACLU and SPLC etc. that wage war against anyone who opposes the Left…people like Soros add funds….the objective is to intimidate and discourage people like Steyn…this whole episode is probably costing mann little or nothing.
Is Pennsylvania State University Distinguished University Professor Michael E Mann’s lawsuit being funded by the Global Warming Defense Fund?
I think you mean the CSLDF.
(I don’t know whether they’re paying for it.)
Ironically, the ACLU (among others) filed an amicus brief in favor of Steyn’s position in this lawsuit (nearly a decade ago!!!) while nobody filed any such brief in favor of Mann’s position!
It doesn’t matter.
If Mann is receiving free legal care gratis from a third party, it is considered income and he must pay tax upon the value.
Any bets on Mann committing income tax fraud?
“I asked the (if memory serves) second trial judge if we could just get the hell on with it and go to trial. He turned me down, alas. But here we are, a mere eight-and-a-half years later, and my wish has very belatedly been granted. We will be going to trial, albeit with rather fewer defendants than once were.”
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
https://tinyurl.com/5x5mmu36
“A defendant in a criminal case has a right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While the Constitution does not define a speedy trial, the federal Speedy Trial Act and state laws provide some guidance on when the right may be violated. In some states, the prosecution has a certain number of days to bring a defendant to trial after they have been arraigned on an indictment.”
I’m not sure, but maybe I’m confusing a speedy trial here with the time it takes to get to trial. Are they the same thing or no? However, the last line of the 2nd quote above says what it says.
At any rate Anthony, I don’t know if your 6th amendment rights are being violated here, but eight-and-one-half years is ridiculous. I would look into this if I were you. Just my 2 cents worth.
Oops, I just realized we are talking about Mark Steyn here and not Anthony. Sorry about the confusion.
It isn’t a criminal case.
Didn’t know the amendment only applied to criminal cases. I guess I should have read further before commenting.
The rights of a criminal defendant do not apply in civil court. That said, most criminal defendants have their speedy trial rights trampled as well. At least that is my experience as a defense attorney.
starzmom, see my comment above. Thought the 6th amendment applied to all cases.
It is the ideal, but in civil matters the ideal is rarely realized. In a criminal trial all exculpatory evidence must be provided to the defense or it cannot be used in trial. There is no such nicety in civil law. Only Examination for Discovery can glean the civil equivalent … provided you know what questions to ask and the party doesn’t lie (perjure himself).
A rather famous (or was that infamous?) defendant had all charges dismissed simply by having his attorney insist on his right to a speedy trial. But I can’t remember who it was, now, so I can’t cite references. I think the charges were substantial, like murder or attempted murder, or something equally heinous. The prosecution was stretching trying to make the case anyway, and thought they would keep rescheduling as usually happens and have months yet to investigate and depose and gather evidence and etc., and when the defendant demanded, and the judge granted, his right to a speedy trial, the prosecution had to withdraw the charges, because they weren’t ready for trial. Was that Michael Jackson at his first sexual-misconduct-with-a-minor trial?
I have gotten them dismissed myself for similar reasons. If a prosecutor is too incompetent or lazy to make sure they have witnesses, etc. for the trial date, then they deserve to lose the case. On the other hand, I have seen judges grant the prosecution a lot of leeway.
Sadly, during COVID all trial rights have been waived in my state, by the legislature. The speedy trial times are set by statue.
This is a civil action not a criminal case. Had this been criminal you’d be correct 6th amendment would apply.
maybe they can use a pool of 26 or so trees to pull the jury from….
Mann will agree, so long as he gets to throw out non-conforming jurors.
Is a single stout branch and a short rope too much to ask for?
While ignoring other valid tree datasets.
I have to wonder how Mr. Mann is funding these litigations. Is his employer footing the bill, or could it be one or more interest groups; that would be a story.
Tom: These suits are funded by groups that are not required to identify donors, just like folks who buy Hunter Biden’s melted crayons.
“ See Jor-El complex.”
While I get the point being made, it should be noted Jor-El was the one going against the “consensus” of his scientific peers, and Jor-el was actually right about Krypton’s imminent destruction. Mann, on the other hand, is at the heart of the “consensus” and has never been right.
Fair point.
“Dr. Mann asserts that his reputation was harmed..”
That is what it is all about. His reputation which extends to funding and a good position in the tribe. Not the facts.
Does Mann really care whether he wins or loses these lawsuits?
Isn’t he just making a constant nuisance of himself?
And in doing so, isn’t he just keeping the AGW scam ticking over near the top of the agenda?
You can still poke and annoy people with a broken hockey stick without actually winning the argument (no poke jokes please).
So which will we have first:
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
Fastest Finger First.
Is it 2 3 1 4?
3 1 4 2 , though 1 might not happen at all.
Michael “Piltdown” Mann is scum.
He will be remembered as a fraud, a charlatan and an utterly despicable person.
Don’t forget ugly bastard.
Oh, put a little bonnet on him and a pacifier in his mouth and he’d acquire a distinctly creepy cuteness.
Kinda like the cigar smoking “baby” in the Bugs Bunny cartoons?
Went and refreshed memory by re-researching this long saga.
it began when Steyn published a 250 word essay on National Review’s blog site, The Corner, overseen by Rand Simberg. Mann’s lawyers threatened NR, and on behalf of NR CEI wrote and NR published a long dismissive response.
Steyn’s blog post was titled ‘Football and Hockey’ and humorously compared PSUs internal dismissal of allegations about the fabricated hockey stick to its dismissal of the allegations that PSU knew about Sandusky (for which former PSU head Spannier is now in prison).
Thenlegal record is.long and complex. NR and CEI tried to get Mann’s suit against them dismissed based on DC’s then new and arguably poorly worded antiSLAPP law. The first judge screwed that up, it got appealed and then assigned a second judge and… eventually NR and CEI got summary judgements dismissing them from the suit.
During this saga, Steyn wanted to go to trial and attack Mann. NR and CEI did not, so eventually Steyn (and Simberg got separated. It is that residual suit by Mann that is now docketed, meaning Steyn can finally proceed to discovery, which will include deposing Mann under oath on pain of perjury. Given all that we know know (see upthread for the BEST founder Berkeley lecture on hiding the decline, see McIntyre for strip barks and red noise) Mann cannot allow that.
The residual Steyn case falls directly under NYT v Sullivan. Meaning, that since. Mann was and is a very public figure, he has to show that Steyn acted with ‘actual malice’ (the blog post was false, and Steyn knew it was false). But the post was true and Steyn knew it true. So Mann in the end loses by withdrawal of suit, just like with Tim Ball in Canada, and for the same reason—failure to comply with court ordered discovery that he cannot withstand.
Given all that we know know (see upthread for the BEST founder Berkeley lecture on hiding the decline, see McIntyre for strip barks and red noise)
Muller got several things very wrong in that lecture, The Red Noise thing is baloney, and Bristlecone Pines are nowhere near as influential or indeed bad as they are painted.
Hint: not everything you read at Climate Audit is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
as Mann’s own peers said, you are forever “ defending the indefensible”
When the guy uses links to mann’s ravings as part of the defense one wonders if the bald chubby one is doing his own defense.
That not everything on climate audit is the truth falsehood is a hint. McIntyre’s postings are the truth. Some of the slime-ball comments might be false, but McIntyre has defended everything in detail that he has written, unlike manniacal.
McIntyre’s postings are the truth.
LOL
A million and one 😉
McIntyre also did excellent work on the sham investigation of PSUs looking at the hockey stick allegations.
Maybe he should pay attention to other “process is punishment” cases.
Lawyer who sued Chevron over Ecuador pollution found guilty of contempt (msn.com)
“…Dr. Mann asserts…he began to receive disapproving glances around town after the articles were published…”
Insane much?
It was the little girl with pigtails and lollipop that stuck her tongue out at manniacal, that upset him and made him realize that people disapproved of manniacal….
If an astronomer(s) discovered an asteroid that looked to be on a collision course with earth the FIRST thing they would do is send their data around the world to other astronomers to determine whether the asteroid was atually on course to hit the earth. Mann, however, hid his data and methods until they were legally forced from his hands.
How nice to see all the comments by those well known, and respected, contributors from the past. Mann is using a variant of the Stalingrad legal process but ultimately he will run out of wriggles and Mark Steyn will deservedly kick his fat backside. Nobel Prizewinner indeed, bah!
talk about the wheels of justoce gringing exceedingly slow..
jarndice n jarndice his legal team??
Please desist from putting close-ups of the ugly obnoxious git on my screen. I find that highly “offensive” .
At least have the decency to use a distant shot of him in a group at a distance. I nearly lost my breakfast !!
There seem to be a couple of common assumptions on this thread:
Good luck with both of those 😉
Mikey, is this you behind the sockpuppet?
Mr. Phillips: Your reference to Steyn’s summary judgment statement that discovery is over is only for the motion. I know it doesn’t express that, but you show your ignorance by pretending this statement covers all trial prep instead of the motion in which the statement is made. You can do discovery necessary for such a motion, then do more to prepare for trial after the motion is decided as a denial. Has Mann sat for deposition? IF we learn that Mann’s depo is still to be done, will you return here and correct your error?
As for “some damning email…hidden for two decades”, did you miss the one where the team said “delete” and Mikey said “yes”? So he hid emails two decades ago, just as you surmised. I thought you were a fan?
Semantics.
As for “some damning email…hidden for two decades”, did you miss the one where the team said “delete” and Mikey said “yes”? So he hid emails two decades ago, just as you surmised. I thought you were a fan?
So many myths. In 2008 Phil Jones sent out a mail asking that all mails relating to IPCC AR4 from Keith (Briffa) be deleted. This was ill-advised and arguably contrary to FOI principles.
But Dr Mann did not comply, he just passed the mail along to Eugene Wahl and did not delete any mails himself. He gave testimony to the Penn State Investigation to that effect and produced a trove of the mails that would have been covered by the request.
And this would be irrelevant to Mann vs Steyn even if it were true. I do hope you weren’t pinning your hopes on this nothingburger.
Mr. Phillips: “Semantics”? Your meme that it’s “Steyn’s own” lies bleeding, so what response can there be? You won’t answer my question, so I’ll just have to bring it back up when the story is “Mann refuses depo”. By then, of course, it’ll be some other fake name.
“He produced a trove of emails”, to go with your earlier “he produced a million” something. Sounds like Hillary Clinton, who produced “50,000 pages” but admitted destroying others. One could point out the destroyed emails ’til blue in face, a useful idiot Hillary fan would jump in with the meaningless number produced. Was that you, too?
It is a principle of natural justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. Not around here, obvs.
You are unable to ‘point out’ any deleted emails but there must be some right?
From the Inquiry….
He [Mann] explained that he never deleted emails at the behest of any other scientist, specifically including Dr. Phil Jones, and that he never withheld data with the intention of obstructing science; …
On January 15, 2010, and on behalf of the inquiry committee, Dr. Foley conveyed via email an additional request of Dr. Mann, who was asked to produce all emails related to the fourth IPCC report (“AR4”), the same emails that Dr. Phil Jones had suggested that he delete.
On January 18, 2010, Dr. Mann provided a zip-archive of these emails and an explanation of their content. In addition, Dr. Mann provided a ten page supplemental written response to the matters discussed during his interview.
[..]
Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.
Another rule of mine is not to debate conspiracy theory nutters ….
Investigation was a whitewash from beginning to end.
And here comes the conspiracy theory…
Mr. Phillips: I decided to debate this one.
Uninvestigated and unproven.
Plus, the investigative team ignored that Mann’s forwarding the request itself was improper as that condones the illegal request.
Of course it doesn’t and there was nothing ‘illegal’ about the request – the mails were not the subject of an FOI request at the time, Wahl was not yet an NOAA employee and this whole issue is utterly irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You really are bending over backwards here.
Wahl’s mails were in the CRU mail release – and revealed nothing remotely suspicious.
Documents don’t have to be under a FOI request “at the time” in order to be legally subject to the rules for retention and deletion of documents in the FOI regulations. Indeed if you can delete any document you want as long as “there currently isn’t a FOI request”, that would make FOI requests entirely useless as all the documents of potential interest would be deleted long before anyone could issue such a request.
Deleting a mail that is not subject to an ongoing FOI request is legal, though may contravene organisational policies. There will always be some correspondence that must remain confidential (unpublished research, staff appraisals). But I agree – in this instance, Phil Jones’ request was ill-advised at best.
But Dr Mann did not delete any mails, he merely passed on Jones’ request to Gene Wahl, because he said ‘“I felt Eugene Wahl had to be aware of this e-mail … it could be used against him.’.
And if that really is the worst thing Mann did in his long career, well, yawnsville.
Wahl did delete mails but he was not an NOAA employee at the time so their record retention rules would not apply. The relevant mails came to light in the CRU mail dump and guess what? No malfeasance.
Is that a storm I see in that teacup?
Mann deleted emails 20 years ago
It was 13 years ago and no he didn’t. He produced the ‘deleted’ mails when asked to by the enquiry..
Well, they were not reviewed.
Of course they were. “the Investigatory Committee reviewed documents provided by Dr. Mann in response to requests from both the Inquiry and Investigatory Committees”
It was a whitewash, and besides Mann forwarded the request, that is illegal.
So, the case against Dr Mann, in full, is …. he forwarded a dodgy (but legal) email.
Chortle.
“Bloggers and online commentators made much of the Wahl quotes yesterday, attacking Mann. The widely read Watts Up With That? blog ran a lengthy item that said, “Sources confirm that a federal inspector has questioned Eugene Wahl and Wahl has confirmed that Mann asked him to delete emails,” citing no evidence beyond the forwarded e-mail.
Mann, reached on vacation in Hawaii, said the stories yesterday were “libelous” and false. “They’re spreading a lie about me,” he said of the Web sites. “This has been known for a year and a half that all I did was forward Phil’s e-mail to Eugene.” Asked why he sent the e-mail to his colleague, Mann said, “I felt Eugene Wahl had to be aware of this e-mail … it could be used against him. I didn’t delete any e-mails and nor did I tell Wahl to delete any e-mails.” Why didn’t Mann call Wahl to discuss the odd request? “I was so busy. It’s much easier to e-mail somebody. Nowhere did I approve of the instruction to destroy e-mails.”
https://youtu.be/Yn24rD4mxIc?t=24
Ah Justice Twaddle was spot on the money!!!
I hope his middle name was Twiddle.
Will a court accept withdrawal of a law suit?
Morally it should at least award costs to the defendants.