Mark’s write up:
Day 2. Jury selection ongoing. Lots of last minute depositions piss off the judge. Go to 18:04 to hear the judge’s comments.
Verbal Commentary from Ann McElhinney and Phil McAleer
Free Speech Vs. Climate Alarmism
Welcome back to the Ann and Phelim Scoop! We bring you today’s episode all the way from Washington, DC, where the free speech trial of the century is taking place. You might remember that broadcaster Mark Steyn is in the middle of a twelve-year legal battle because he called out Michael Mann’s shoddy science in the hockey stick graph, which reveals the spike in global temperatures following the Industrial Revolution after having remained stable for a thousand years. Funny enough, there’s no consideration of the Medieval Warming period or the Little Ice Age, but Steyn targeted one of the Left’s favorite orthodoxies, so of course, he’s being dragged through the courts.
The trial between Professor Michael Mann and broadcaster Mark Steyn will determine whether climate alarmism or free speech is going to be the rule of the land. So we’ll be covering it through our new verbatim podcast – Climate Change: On Trial. We will have re-enactments of the day’s most dramatic testimony and you can get a taste of Day One of the trial on the Ann and Phelim Scoop today. This is an episode you won’t want to miss.
Find the first episode of Climate Change: On Trial here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast…
The Conservative Woman Blog has a write up.
From approximately June of 2013 until November of 2014, there were no steps taken in the action;
November 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of intention to proceed;
February 20, 2017, the matter was initially supposed to go to trial, but that trial date was adjourned;
July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed.
As Mark wrote in 2019, a judge is capable of simple arithmetic – there were ‘at least two approximately year-and-a-half periods when plaintiff Mann did bugger all – not a solitary thing’. Whether or not he dared not put his money where his mouth was we don’t know. The point was that as a basic principle, a plaintiff has a legal duty to prosecute his case and Mann didn’t, year in, year out, for nigh on a decade. As the Court ruled:
This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/after-12-years-of-frustration-mark-steyns-brave-battle-for-freedom-of-speech-reaches-court-today/
The full article at TCW is well worth a read.
On X, Roger Pielke Jr talks about his deposition in the cast.
H/T fos for the kick in the pants.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I expect dueling to come back and to be more effective than trials like these.
I believe society was more polite when dueling was allowed.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one might have to back up his acts with his life.
-Robert Heinlein, from “Beyond This Horizon”
Bless you!
No they weren’t, they just disguised it slightly better. And then, of course, you have to mention the duelling classes treatment of those barred from duelling by class or circumstance. It was far from ‘polite’ society even when the Code Duello was enforced.
Under the old rules if a would be dualist was indisposed, his 2nd stood in for him. Mann would never show.
Err no – that’s a misconception, probably Hollywood again. In the duel, seconds (usually 2-3 of them) were there as witnesses to a fair contest and mediators, to try to reconcile the duelists without the need for violence. If a primary (duelist) failed to show then they were branded a coward, their opponent won by default and the seconds would bear witness to the cowardice. Seconds did not, at any time, stand in for their primaries.
So if you lost a duel by failing to show up, you were still alive, presumably. On the other hand, if you lost a duel that you did show up to, you were likely dead. What is the consequence for failing to show up and losing by default? Just your pride, not your life?
The duelling classes in most countries were the idle rich, on the whole, where social rank was highly important – people were ostracised from society for such things as cowardice and it was not uncommon for someone to take their own life in those circumstances.
In reply to rah, I was referring to the european code duello which usually was the duel with swords (unlike the irish code duello which governed duel by pistols, or the Marquess of Queensbury rules which were brought in to govern pugilist duels of honour between gentlemen) and under those rules, the primaries would bash at each other with swords until one was unable to continue. If a primary was unable to continue due to wounds suffered the duel was over, the winner was the one still able to continue and honour was satisfied. I don’t really know of any duels that allowed a substitute to be brought in, except in fiction.
I would also suggest rah reads the section on the ‘code duello’ which debunks several of the ideas put forward in his wiki article such as ‘first blood’ and the use of substitutes.
“…..or the Marquess of Queensbury rules which were brought in to govern pugilist duels of honour between gentlemen”.
I hate being a pedant but Queensbury rules were introduced to regulate professional boxing and, more specifically, the “semi-legal world of the London Prize Ring” bare knuckle fighting.
Queensbury was an amateur boxer and Cambridge University lightweight champion himself.
Nor did Queensbury write the rules, “he merely endorsed the work of the great Welsh sports guru John Graham Chambers…”
https://boxingnewsonline.net/the-marquess-of-queensberry-the-man-who-broke-the-rules/
The rules were brought in to govern boxing btween gentlemen as a non-fatal form of duelling, Chambers did not intend them as a set of rules for professional sport, although that’s what they became.
No they weren’t.
Did you read the article? Queensbury rules were introduced for professional/amateur, competitive boxing. Nothing to do with aristocracy/ gentlemen or or ‘duelling’.
It’s foundation was, more than likely, to organise street fighting which was a rich source of betting, into a more organised format so Bookies, not the competitors, could call foul.
Illustrations of bare knuckle fighting are largely nonsense as well. Blows to the head were to be mostly avoided as the skull is more than a match for fragile bones in the hand.
Bare knuckle was mostly brawling for that reason. More noted for it’s kicking and biting than punching.
Romanticised at the time by, guess who? Yep, the media.
HotScot did you, as I earlier suggested rah do, go and read the wikipedia article on the code duello? No? You should, it gives another perspective.
You did not likely to die by showing up. IIUC, most duels ended with the sides seeing eye-to-eye without a shot fired. If shots were fired, either the duelists purposefully aimed away from the target or the shot missed due to the fact that the pistols were terribly inaccurate. Alexander Hamilton, I believe, is an outlier.
For Michael Mann, because he did not show up for his “duel” with Tim Ball, we are able, by adverse inference, to conclude that he does indeed belong in state pen, not in Penn State. More bluntly, not showing up made Mann a self-confessed fraud.
Practices varied, however, but unless the challenger was of a higher social standing, such as a baron or prince challenging a knight, the person being challenged was allowed to decide the time and weapons used in the duel. The offended party could stop the duel at any time if he deemed his honor satisfied. In some duels, the seconds would take the place of the primary duelist if the primary was not able to finish the duel. This was usually done in duels with swords, where one’s expertise was sometimes limited. The second would also act as a witness.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel
It’s just a matter of time when it becomes obvious in the courtroom that Dr. Mann will fail to show that he suffered from the supposed defamation as he made millions kept his job no problem authoring books and so on in the last 12 years and that he dragged his ass in getting it to trial eerily similar to what happened to Dr. Ball who finally had the case dropped due to Mann’s lack of interest to a resolution.
Mark Steyn believes that even if Mann wins (DC after all!) his team will appeal in the hope of reattaching earlier defendants with deeper pockets. He also thinks that Mann’s lawyer is working on a contingency fee basis and so has plenty of skin in the game and (one hopes) an increasing sense of desperation about his chances of ever seeing any money. Mann of course does not pay out even when he loses (the disgraceful outcome of his case against Tim Ball).
Find out who appointed the judge, and you’ll know what the outcome will be. After the appeal is heard in a couple more years……..
This case has drastically reduced my respect for federal judges. Mann’s suit should have been dismissed because Mann is a much more of a public figure than Tim Paterson (original author of what is now called MS-DOS), and Paterson’s defamation suit against the author of the Gary Kildahl biography for claiming that Paterson copied CP/M code when writing QDOS/86-DOS/MS-DOS.
What’s fun to see is that there is a lot more evidence that Mann did commit scientific fraud.
Need to read Pielke’s deposition. His point is, scientific fraud is not a legal concept. The legal concept is research misconduct, and that consists of one or more of falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. He argues, as have both Curry and MacIntyre, that the Hockey Stick did not involve research misconduct. The argument is you would not be able to adequately evidence one of those three criteria.
But that it was misrepresentation of the underlying data.
The question is, was that what people in a lay and informal context usually mean by scientific fraud?
I think the question this turns on is the way Principal Component Analysis was done to get the results. When doing PCA one of the steps requires you to divide by the mean of a series. As I understand it, Mann did not divide by the mean of the series, but by the mean of a subset of it. This was referred to as ‘short centered’ PCA.
There is however no such thing as ‘short centered’ PCA. The procedure is not PCA at all. So, is that what people usually mean by scientific fraud in a lay context? Or is it simply incompetent or misrepresentation?
Pielke’s point is that there is a difference between research misconduct, which has a very narrow and precise meaning, and other sorts of reasons why papers and studies may be of bad quality. When you get your PCA procedure as wrong as that, which is it? His judgment, and that of Curry and MacIntyre seems to be that the Hockey Stick is terrible science, but not research misconduct. Would most people call it scientific fraud?
Difficult question. A lot would, a lot would not.
https://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/
This is one of Curry’s pieces on it. Worth reading. I am surprised that ‘short centering’ doesn’t fall under falsification, but they are the experts on that sort of thing.
Here at WUWT, the answer is a clear yes.
Even the East Anglia “climate scientists” mentioned “Mikes Nature Trick” in their emails.
So b. it is, LOL.
Tiljander would appear to be a problem for Dr Mann.
For those who don’t know old Mikey used the sediment record inverse to what those who collected and analyzed the data said it should be used, to help get the hookey shitk.
Drake,
To avoid confusion, the upside-down label of McIntyre derived from inversion of the graph, so that an effect that others considered should relate to a temperature increase was equated to a temperature decrease.
It was not a matter of inverting the core, or its measurements, so that top became bottom, in case any think of that type of upside-down.
Geoff S
I believe I would go further than Dr. Pielke when he says “I have no doubts that Mann believes his work to be true and others less true.” Why would Mann hide the use of certain proxies, indeed lie about which ones were and were not used, for over 25 years unless he knew his work was not true and intentionally misled everyone to conceal that fact?
Yes, its an argument. I also would like to hear his response to a searching cross examination about ‘short centering’.
They’d likely lose the jurors at that point, if they go into the complex technicalities of statistical analysis. Steyn has an expert witness on statistics coming up, I believe, so hopefully the technicalities will be explained to the jury.
Misrepresentation is a form of fraud.
Yes, in colloquial English, or in some commercial contexts. But it doesn’t seem to fall under the prescribed categories of research misconduct.
Same with Tiljander. The defence would argue that it may be mistaken, but did not meet the criteria for research mcisconduct. The defence would argue that you can make a mistake without its being fraudulent.
That said, a series of defences made by the author it it along those lines would be almost as damaging to the HS as a finding of fraud…. It would be impossible to live down.
In cases of scientific misconduct, proving legal fraud in court can be a very difficult hurdle – the article on the NIWA case that came up again springs to mind. NIWA were taken to court after tampering with the NZ temperature record but won the case as the plaintiff was unable to prove legal fraud.
Where does the burden of proof fall in this case – as defendant, does Steyn have to prove fraud or does Mann have to prove he didn’t commit fraud?
The NIWA case was about judicial review not fraud. Judicial review requires the court to take deference to the expertise of the impugned body and as long as the decision was made within that expertise and in accordance with the methodology of that body a request for review must be dismissed.
I believe that, in the US, Mann, to prove defamation, will have to prove both deliberate or reckless falsehood, and actual damage. I’m not an attorney but my impression is that malign intent is an essential element of a successful claim. Along with actual damage.
So the defendant can defeat by showing that a reasonable person with clean motives could come to the conclusions he voiced on the evidence he had at the time. Or, of course, that what he said was true. Truth is an absolute defence to defamation.
I suspect this will not be true of an allegation of research misconduct, but will be true of the vaguer concept of fraudulent misrepresentation. A reasonable person reading such things as MacIntyre.s investigations or ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’ could reasonably come to that conclusion.
A bit like the Nieman affair. Anyone who worked through the various grandmaster youtube analyses of some of his games could reasonably conclude there was a case to answer, and could have concluded even that it was inescapable. A matter of judgment. Without being either malicious or reckless. But maybe being mistaken all the same.
Possibly, but working to hide the mistake and refusing to correct it, leans towards evidence of fraud.
A much simpler, self-evident basis of which to convict Mann would be (in my opinion) –
“an asshole posing as a human being”.
No contest, your honor.
In December 2022, while hosting the Mark Steyn Show on GB News TV, Mark Steyn endured two heart attacks, a harrowing experience that he later revealed almost claimed his life, with him being just 15 minutes away from death, as conveyed in a video on his website.
Nov 22, 2023
He is not the same very healthy person we heard on Rush’s show years ago. I’m sure this lawsuit did not help. I don’t know if he is asking for donations for his legal defense, but I would contribute if I knew where to contribute.
“but I would contribute if I knew where to contribute.”
Most certainly, also !!
For reasons that I can completely understand, Richard, Mark Steyn avoids the traditional fundraising routes. The best way to support him financially is to go to his website and become a member or buy some of his merch – especially the fake hockey stick, personally signed and numbered.
In December last year, his assistant Melissa Howes sent me the following summary of their position:
===
Mark is quite happy and grateful when readers buy:
a liberty stick
https://www.steynstore.com/product36.html
club membership
https://www.steynonline.com/club/gift-membership/
gift certificate
https://www.steynstore.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/msteyn/sc/order.cgi?fromid=order.cgi&storeid=*20d8b94cf50031447ae51bbc72a196e8a0b7&cert=gift
or other items from the store
https://www.steynstore.com/
This commercial transaction becomes a win-win for Mark, for the cause, and for the customer.
We decided long ago not to go the Go Fund Me route for many good reasons. For one, Mark is not seeking charity. For another, our method protects supporters from harassment. See Canadian Truckers, et al.
===
The source fro everything is https://www.steynonline.com/
This is a milestone case in the CAGW battle IMO. I have almost no expectation that a DC jury will reject Mann’s suit and find in favour of Steyn. Remember that this is the court circuit that recently awarded damagges of gazillions against Rudy Giuliani for impugning the probity of some election counters,
Thanks for the information
95% plus Democrats in the jury pool.
NO trials of a conservative or Republican should ever be held in such biased jurisdictions.
Democrats are in no way peers of Conservatives, and the US constitution requires a “jury of your peers”.
Just tell the jury that Mann is a good friend of Trump and they’ll be totally on Steyns side after that!
“For another, our method protects supporters from harassment. See Canadian Truckers, et al.”
That’s something to think about. New ways of thwarting Big Brother authoritarianism are always welcome.
100%!
Highly recommend both the Liberty Stick (suitable for a game of deck shuffleboard on the final fatal voyage of RMS Climate Catastrophe) and Prisoner of Windsor (laugh out loud caper at breakneck speed, beware of strange looks depending on where you’re reading).
Mann has managed to accumulate about $5 million in personal wealth while at the same time paying for a crack legal team for these 12 years. Also during that time he paid for another legal team to argue his case in Canada m, which lost and refused to pay the court ordered judgment and thus is a fugitive from justice in the great white north.
I would almost guarantee that , like Hunter having benefactors paying his legal (and living) expenses, that some 9one or more) Democrat Crony Capitalist Oligarch is footing the bill.
One of the many problems with US Jurisprudence is that pro-bono or contingency attorneys cannot be made to pay the legal expenses (and travel, lodging, etc.) of defendants in such an action as this. Mann sued in the DC circuit even though neither he or Steyn live there, so every court hearing costs Steyn expenses other than just legal fees.
Looser pays is why the UK does not have such frivolous lawsuits as Mann vs Steyn.
I doubt he’s paid much from his own pocket for his legal teams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Science_Legal_Defense_Fund
Here’s a bit of info on where they get some of their funding.
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/public-employees-for-environmental-responsibility-inc-peer/
I should mention that years ago I looked into some of the non-profits that fund PEER.
Many had connections to George Soros.
Careful. Mann might see in your phrase “$5 million in personal wealth while at the same time paying for crack” and litigate.
Mann should inform the court that he himself is an experienced and prolific expert blanket defamer:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GCpIWkmXkAALXAk?format=png
Whew, projecting much!
Anyone who watched Dr Curry show up Mr Mann as a liar in public and on video will draw their own conclusions as to what kind of person Mr Hockey Stick is..
When one compares the treatment meted out to Dr Curry to that meted out to Mr Mann any intelligent human being would conclude that academia on both sides of the Pond took a badly wrong turning well before the latter’s trickery entered the public domain.
Didn’t Steyn already win this in Canaduh?
No. Mann v Ball was a Canadian case, which Mann lost. Mann v Frontier Centre for Public Policy was another Canadian case where (I think) they reprinted Steyn’s remarks – in that one, the FCPP backed down and apologised. This is an American case (hence the long delay) that has yet to be heard anywhere.
FCPP – splitters!
Apologies, they reprinted letters and commentary from Tim Ball about Mann, which they then apologised for before Tim Ball went on to win his case.
Ahh, little Mikee Mann is getting his ass banged by so many different people ya need a flow chart to track it.
There may be some interesting information in this amateurish cut and paste job. I will not know it though since I am not going to bother formatting this into something readable, which the author is typically responsible for. I only mention this because I see many articles that, I suppose in haste, are just thrown together and published here.
I have to admit I found this post extremely difficult to follow. Perhaps the author could provide a condensed summary.
OK Michael.
Thanks for your input. Will you be presenting it as evidence?
Maybe it would be more comprehensible for crackers if the text was liberally interspersed with phrases such as “like”, “amiright”, “you know”, etc, etc?
After reading a definition of rando for the fourth time, I stopped reading.
and being curious?
Not that curious, obviously.
The poster on that video reads “Protect Our Planet”. However, looking at the planet that is drawn on the poster I can’t figure out what planet he wants to protect. It certainly isn’t this one.
Anybody in east North America remember all the endless smoke from Canadian fires? “News” article says, double-speak style in bold print “Quebec climate change conspiracy theorist” started them, when in fact he was just a standard eco-loon.
From Steyn’s webpage:
https://www.steynonline.com/14027/we-have-a-jury
Sorry, my above didn’t list the direct link to the “news” article:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12969185/quebec-conspiracy-theorist-sets-fires-pleads-guilty.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490
It’s a shame that fraudster Mann has been allowed to get this far, especially after the way he’s refused to share raw data to other scientists so they can verify his work, which is of course he refuses to release it, since it will show what a fraud he is. I stand behind Mark Stein 100%, because even if he were wrong (which he isn’t, IMHO), he should have the right to say whatever he likes about Mann and his ilk.