Mark Steyn has begun the process of appealing the Mann v Steyn verdict.
~Following last month’s verdict, Mann vs Simberg and Steyn moves on into its thirteenth year and the appellate phase …oh, no, sorry, we’ve still got some post-verdict maneuvring to attend to. On Friday, my counsel filed three motions at the District of Columbia Superior Court. If, as with baseball cards, you’re anxious to collect the set, they are:
a) a Motion to Stay Execution …wait, wuh? Nobody said anything about execution. Relax, it’s merely a Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment;
b) a Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; and
c) a Motion for (gulp) a New Trial.
Steyn then goes on to lay out the case for appeal, starting with the likely unlawful punitive award.
The $1,000,000 punitive damage award is unlawful for multiple reasons.
Among other things, the verdict “violates both DC law and the First Amendment” (page three) and also “violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” (page seven). So yeah, I’m waving that Constitution, and we’ll see where that gets me:“Freedom of speech and the press are most seriously implicated … in cases involving disfavored speech on important political or social issues.” Mann, 140 S. Ct. at 347–48… The verdict in this case will have a horrible “chilling effect” on discussing controversial political issues like climate change. CEI, 150 A.3d at 1242… Our nation relies on “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” N.Y. Times, 376 U.S. at 270. This verdict silences further debate… That result is repugnant to the First Amendment.
Steyn bemoans the absurdity of the duration of this case as well as the bias of DC courts.
Even in the dank septic tank of American “justice”, I am reasonably confident that I would win at the Supreme Court. However, I am less confident that I will live that long. So judgment as a matter of law – because the verdict is unlawful – would be appreciated.
He then continues on with another foundation for his appeal.
Did you read what passes for the mainstream media’s coverage of this case?
Forbes magazine:
Mann said he hoped the verdict would send a message “that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”
Michael E Mann himself and his lawyer, writing in The New York Times:
We hope this sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences.Andrew Lewin, host of How to Protect the Ocean:
Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message?
Steyn points out.
There’s just one problem with that (top of page five):
The Court of Appeals “has stated repeatedly that an attorney must not ask a jury to ‘send a message’ to anyone.” Bowman v. United States, 652 A.2d 64, 71 (D.C. 1994). This is the law for good reason: “Juries are not in the message-sending business. Their sole duty is to return a verdict based on the facts before them.” Id. See also Coreas v. United States, 565 A.2d 594, 604 (D.C. 1989) (“Argument which encourages the jury to ‘send a message’ has been found improper by this court.”); Powell v. United States, 455 A.2d 405, 410 (D.C. 1982) (“The function of the jury is to determine the facts based on evidence presented. The jurors are not empaneled to send messages on behalf of their community.”).And the parties here agreed and represented to the Court that “Plaintiff will not present any argument or evidence related to any claim that the jury should ‘send a message’ through its verdict.” Jt. Pretrial Statement at 8 (§ E-13).
Telling the jury “these attacks on climate scientists have to stop” was a forbidden send-a-message argument. See Scott, 928 A.2d at 685 n.7, 689… And Plaintiff’s team dispelled any doubt that they had asked the jury to “send a message” about stopping attacks on climate scientists by issuing a press release after the verdict that quoted Mann as saying “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.” Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann), Twitter (Feb. 8, 2024, 5:11 PM)
Inviting jurors to send that message, Mann’s counsel drew a comparison between “climate deniers” (me, Simberg, Curry, McIntyre, McKitrick et al) and “election deniers” (Trump and the J6-ers). Footnote Five on page eight:
Steyn then notes how the Plaintiffs worked the biases of the jury.
Counsel’s comparison was especially egregious and prejudicial because the January 6 violence occurred in the District of Columbia and because, as counsel knew, one of the jurors, Juror 931, works for the U.S. Senate Sergeant-at-Arms to watch for security risks, “including demonstrations that are affecting my agency.” Tr. 92 (1/17/24 AM). Juror 931’s office was at the center of the January 6 riot. See Michael Balsamo & Sophia Tulp, US Senate sergeant-at-arms during Capitol riot dies at 71, Associated Press (June 28, 2022), https://tinyurl.com/4bu7kw7u.
Juror 931 served as the foreman of the jury.
This was the juror who had earlier sent a note to the Court:
It is well known for my family and friends that I am not a fan of fox news. I wanted to inform the judge [indecipherable] to the sensitivity of this case. I did not recognize the defendant [Steyn] as a fox news host until opening statements.
Then Steyn lays out another foundation for the unlawfulness of the punitive damage award.
As to the one dollar in actual damages plus a million bucks in punitive damages (page four):
Plaintiff failed to present any non-speculative proof of damages; the jury awarded him $1 in nominal damages …and under both the First Amendment and D.C. law that means Plaintiff may not collect punitive damages. The Supreme Court has explained that, because of the First Amendment, a “defamed party must establish that he has suffered some sort of compensable harm as a prerequisite to the recovery of additional punitive damages”…
“Under the law of the District of Columbia, one cannot receive punitive damages if only nominal damages are sought and awarded.” Unidisco, Inc. v. Schattner, No. B-80-2617, 1986 WL 84363, at *13 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 1986)… In the District, “‘a verdict assessing punitive damages can be returned only when there is also a verdict assessing compensatory or actual damages.'”
Steyn sums up.
That would seem straightforward enough even for the District of Columbia. But it’s American “justice”, so the way to bet is that I’ll have to spend another five million to prove that I don’t have to pay the lousy one mil.
Let’s all wish Mark Steyn well in his long and tortured journey, defending free speech and dealing with authoritarian lawfare.
What about the fact that Mark Steyn was not permitted to present evidence about how unscientifically the data for the infamous and subsequently universally discredited hockey stick curve was produced.
Indeed!
Vijay wrote:
https://twitter.com/VijayJayaraj_CC/status/1760307939179463078
He also retweeted Rupert Darwall:
https://twitter.com/RupertDarwall/status/1759923913717399850
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2024/02/19/the_hockey_stick_trial_science_dies_in_a_dc_courtroom_1012630.html
I like the new and improved picture associated with this posting
I was rushed on the first one.
They denied him the right to prove the fraud claim. Did Mann ever reveal his methodology during the discovery process?
No, in the sense that he never defended the criticism against his admittedly novel centered PCA methodology, which McIntrye showed (in a peer reviewed paper) almost always produces hockey sticks from red noise. All paleoproxies by definition have red rather than white noise (meaning some degree of time series autocorrelation—obvious, as this years weather will be somewhat similar to last years weather in the same proxy location).
McIntyre also found that the raw data Mann likely used didn’t match the output that was produced. Selection bias alone is scientific fraud if it could be proved.
Strip bark US bristlecones. 1 Yamal Larch. The Montfort book gives all of his erroneous examples, including Upside down Ylander lake sediment.
Thanks! That’s exactly what I was referring to!
The 1 Yamal Larch was Briffa’s baby. Was it used in MBH98?
Yes
Yup, good point but not really relevant just yet. Mark Steyn is challenging just the points of law that were wrongly or inappropriately applied during the Mann v Steyn court case. If this challenge is unsuccessful then Steyn can appeal the whole shenanigans and, at that point, can present evidence that he was not allowed to fully make his case, but not just yet I think.
Agree. He should try to win quickly on the law, and not seek costly further fact litigation. End this thing. Punitive damages of max $9 per State Farm v Campbell, and done.
IPCC accepted the original Hockey Stink and recently used an updated version
IPCC use of the chart in 2021 means a non scientist had had no hope of discrediting the junk science (data mining incompetent proxies)
Why? There is nothing credible about a propaganda organization like the IPCC, that according to its own “charter,” if you will, “determined” that a human influence on “climate” existed before it ever examined any “science.”
Evidence is out of fashion these days in the US justice system (such as it is), replaced by emotion – the feelz – and a weapon for the Establishment against those whom it doesn’t like and political opponents.
I would like to donate to Steyn, by cheque, is there an address? I have donated to Anthony and to Heartland before.
Easiest way to “donate” is to go to his website SteynOnline and buy a gift certificate addressed to yourself. Or simply buy merchandise. For example, a copy of “A Disgrace to the Profession”, still the most complete hockey stick takedown.
Before the trial was over I bought a copy of “A Disgrace to the Profession” – well worth getting, it sets out many of the problems with climate science as well as Michael Mann.
I predicted earlier here that Steyn would appeal, as he now has. In addition to the several legal arguments set forth above in his appeal filing, he has an additional very strong one up his sleeve.
SCOTUS ruled in State Farm v Campbell 538US408 (2003) that punitive damages 10x or more actual damages are unconstitutional, and the unconstitutional line is approached in most cases at 4x.
Steyn was assessed $1 in actual damages to Mann and $999,999 in punitive damages. Steyn did the math.
DC courts have a certain Banana Republic odor. An 8th Amendment violation is not beyond their range.
Stricktly speaking A8 does not apply—it’s criminal stuff only. This is purely civil.
There are some exceptions, like Letitia James ‘civil fraud’ against Trump. The exceptions are where ‘civil’ is transparently just a ruse around criminal alternative to avoid A8. Turley thinks Trump will use that argument.
But I think Trumps appeal there will be on other grounds: (1) Arbitrary summary judgement by Engoron when docs said ‘do not rely, do your own valuation work’ is a procedural error at law, (2) no victims—banks loved Trump’s whale business and never lost money—a victim is one of 5 requirements under NY civil fraud law, and (3) malicious political persecution based on Letitia James campaign promises.
And your summary of all of that is…
Just for those of us who don’t want to wade through an absolute mass of American jurisprudence just to try to find a 4 or 5 word nugget that would sum up the whole thing.
Let me try. Steyn said the DC court system was a sewer. What Charles just posted proves Steyn correct.
DC Appeals courts twice directly ignoring a clear prior SCOTUS ruling.
Any argument regarding the 10:1 ratio of punitive damages vs actual damages is going to be fail.
Disagree. Here is why. Mann was given ample opportunity by the court to prove actual damages, and could not. No loss of researchgrants, no loss of prestige (he got ‘promoted’ twice), no loss of books sales or academic publications.
So DC jury just decided $0~$1, a token admission of damages failure.
That’s not the point. Charles’ post shows that there is plenty of precedent for punative damages vs actual damages to have a ratio of much larger than 10:1 which is an argument some have made to suggest the $1M is too high.
I think Steyn can win but not on that argument.
High ratios were deemed justifiable when the compensatory damage was low.
I have often wondered how James had standing to prosecute when there was no ‘victim’ coming forth to seek compensation.
She sued under 63(12). That statute’ wording unfortunately gives her broad discretion to right general fraud wrongs. She probably thinks she can decide what got victimized (her and New York).
63(12) has only ever before been used to defend individual consumers against big predatory lending. Never before for major peer to peer business transactions as here. So her suit literally has no precedent. In fact, one appeals argument I have read is that Engoron never had jurisdiction as James attempted because the matter should have been heard in a commercial, not consumer, court.
I think her interpretation is dead wrong on several counts noted above, having researched it. But am not a licensed member of the New York bar.
Does the excessive fines clause apply to civil cases?
In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), the Court noted that the application of the Excessive Fines Clause to civil forfeiture did not depend on whether it was a civil or criminal procedure, but rather on whether the forfeiture could be seen as punishment.
RG, good catch. That case outlines an example to the general exception to ‘A8 applies criminal only’. As always in the law, yes BUT…
Trump will likely use exactly that line of reasoning to bring A8 to his appeal. At least Prof Turley says so.
I just posted the 4x and 10x before reading your excellent comment from hours earlier. I can not understand legalese so I did not know if the actual damages to punitive damages ratios would be different for every case, or a rule of thumb for all cases. In any case, the grossly excessive punitive damages are an eighth amendment violation.
I may be on the extreme here, but I’ve always felt that civil law was the province of compensatory damages.
If you want to punish someone, that’s the realm of criminal law and should be handled under the rules of criminal trials, not civil ones.
RG, I went to Harvard Law and am a licensed Bar member since 1976. So let me help.
Two factors.
First, in all the major cases the actual to punitive ratios vary greatly. As a general rule very low actual damages to high punative damages means the jury is sending a message. As Steyn’s appeal set forth, that is NOT allowed at law. A jury’s function is soley to decide facts. Messaging isn’t.
SCOTUS almost never gives hard and fast rules. They usually give rules of thumb which allows some future wiggle room for exceptions for unanticipated cases, without having to revisit the doctrine of Stare Decisis. (OK, in nonlegal English, ‘The thing has been decided’.) This is such an area.
There are of course exceptions to this general thumb rule, for example Dobbs overturning ‘stare decisis’ Roe v Wade last year. That was black and white conlaw. Alito’s opinion gives an excellent overview of the doctrine, and when it should frequently apply and infrequently when not.
I should add, law school teaches you to think in generally convoluted ways. General rules. Exceptions to general rules. Exceptions to exceptions. Very fine hairsplitting, but always a distinction carrying a legal difference. See my comments here about Letitia James Trump civil fraud suit for an example where she likely
failed.
Thank you for an explanation
This whole thing is a huge waste of talent and money. It must have consumed as much treasure as the first Moon landing.
This could have been settled honorably in the manner of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton but using paint-guns on the National Mall — where history is made and known as America’s front yard.
Or, failing that, it could have been sorted out in under 3 years if the US court system a) applied the US laws equally and b) weren’t completely overwhelmed with the idea of making money for the legal profession.
Actually, Burr and Hamilton probably took the right approach. “An armed society is a polite society.” [Robert A. Heinlein]
Meanwhile the galaxy class hypocrite still hasn’t paid the lawsuit cost with Dr. Balls estate as mandated by the British Columbia court.
Mann evades the Ball fine by staying out of Canada
Styne can evade his US fine by staying out of th US.
Tim Ball was financially ruined by the case brought by Mann, so much so that his family had to resort to a Go Fund Me campaign to pay for his funeral.
Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe Mann’s refusal to pay Ball’s legal costs.
Winning or losing is not the point. As Steyn has pointed out many times over the last couple of decades, the process is the punishment. Mann and his backers have already won. The message sent and received is that anyone who challenges the Progressive narrative and gets the attention of the clime syndicate will be made to engage with the legal system to the likely cost of millions of dollars and for the rest of their lives.
Tend to disagree. Yes, the process is the punishment. But Steyn got more than even with proceeds from his book A Disgrace to the Profession. Buy the book if you haven’t already. Mann had no recourse, because all Steyn did was compile serious public record Mann complaints from 100 of his climate science peers. Steyn rubbed salt in the wound by subtitling the book “volume 1”.
Steyn subtitled it ‘volume 1’ because, when he was compiling the quotes, he found he had more than enough for a 3-volume set! Mann’s peers have ripped his ‘work’ to shreds on innumerable occasions – if it wasn’t for the IPCC and NOAA supporting his hockey stick he’d have sunk into ignoble obscurity years ago.
Although “Disgrace” was a sweet form of revenge, I seriously doubt that it has fully compensated for the financial and personal stress that the suit has heaped upon Steyn over the last dozen-plus years. (How many heart attacks are we up to now?)
Two. Both nearly fatal, hence the current wheelchair. But that has mostly to do with Steyn physiology, not Mann paleology.
I look forward to volumes 2 and three, plus comments and content from the trial. Mann may “win” in DC but in the public domain he deserves to hear from a fairer jury.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Justice delayed, enhances the bank accounts of the lawyers involved.
Yup. As a lawyer, I must heartily agree. You figure if sarc.
From above, “Juries are not in the message-sending business. Their sole duty is to return a verdict based on the facts before them.”
From Charles Rotter below, the ratio of 42,677:1 was justified because of the small compensatory damages award, as well as District of Columbia’s “strong interest in deterring [D.C. Human Rights Act] violations . . .” Id. at 783-784.
So a jury cannot send messages and (from elsewhere) lawyers cannot advocate sending messages but the District of Columbia, through its court system can send messages? Smells rotten to me.
I’m not sure that calling the justice system a “dank septic tank” in your appeal is a great legal strategy, but the language does seem in line with Steyn’s prior legal strategy of defending his defamation by doubling down and committing more of it in front of the jury.
I wish him all the luck he deserves in his appeal effort.
Get back with us when Mann pays what he owes Dr. Ball after losing that case.
What does Mann still owe Ball’s estate after having the case dismissed? Exact dollar amount, please and thanks.
Wow, practically Stokesian in your ability to bring up utter irrelevant nonsense.
The claim is made that Mann owes Ball’s estate money, but can anyone tell us how much? Or when it is owed by?
Apparently not…?
Only the courts and the parties concerned know the exact amounts as this was never made public but fairly accurate estimates appear to be around $1.4million.
So pretending to know that Mann owes Ball’s estate some substantial sum of money is… what would you call it? A flagrant lie?
Your ability to ignore reality remains as strong as ever.
The court ordered Mann to pay legal fees. While we may not know the legal fees to the penny, it’s not that difficult to guess the general amount.
Just keep dancing and weaving, the only one impressed is you.
The court said he was ordered to pay costs, which Mann stated did not include Ball’s legal fees. These would have amounted to a few hundred dollars at most, since neither party ever set foot in the courtroom. There is also no source demonstrating that Mann failed to pay any required fees, that’s just another made up lie.
Pretty much the foundation upon which this site is built.
Ah yes, anything I disagree with is a lie.
Classic left wing trope.
If it was just a few hundred dollars then why did he not just pay it?
Troll
Mann was ordered to pay the defendant’s full costs. That terminology may differ in effect from Canada to the US but included every penny Dr. Ball spent in defending his case from legal fees, court costs and even accomodation on the occasions when they were in court. Mann may not have set foot in the courtroom but both legal teams did and everything they did costs. Just to put it into perspective, Mann’s legal costs (if he’d actually had to pay for the legal services) in the Mann v Steyn case are estimated to be between $15 and $20 million in total. Legal representation over the years that Mann strung these cases out for costs a great deal of money.
That estimate given for Dr. Balls case was put forward by a lawyer with experience in this sort of thing and is likely a conservative estimate. Your laymans ignorance of what constitutes legal costs and the likely amount is completely irrelevant.
You all can’t offer a solitary shred of evidence to substantiate any of this. Just mindlessly repeating stuff you read on some blog somewhere.
Nope. AlanJ, If you would bother to spend 30 seconds researching Mann v Ball you would uncover the facts. The Canadian court dismissed Mann’s case for failure to reply to Ball’s fact interrogatory for over 3 years. Dismissed with prejudice, Ball’s costs to be covered.
Don’t sue then slink away upon pointed discovery.
I’ve read the summary judgement, and it says nothing about Mann failing to reply to Ball’s fact interrogatory. Nor does it say how much Mann owes Ball.
But no one here can say what those are, or whether they have been covered. No one can even cite a single external source.
The reason the court found against Mann was his refusal to provide an affidavit to support his claim. Since this was not forthcoming, the court applied Adverse Inference to dismiss his claim.
From Judge Giaschi’s summing up:
I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all.
[9] Counsel for Dr. Mann submits that the delay was due to his being busy on other matters, but the affidavit evidence falls far short of establishing this. The affidavit of Jocelyn Molnar, filed April 10, 2019, simply addresses what matters plaintiff’s counsel was involved in at various times. The affidavit does not connect those other matters to the delay here. It does not explain the lengthy delay in 2013 and 2014 and does not adequately explain the delay from July 2017. The evidence falls far short of establishing an excuse for the delay.
The affidavit was in response to Ball’s request to dismiss the case due to delay, there is no indication whatsoever in the summary judgement that is had anything to do with an interrogatory from Ball or a failure from Mann to meet discovery. There is certainly no evidence presented here or anywhere else in the thread that Mann failed to pay court ordered costs.
Since Mann’s case was so strong, why did he not comply and deliver the affidavit?
Why did Ball’s family have to resort to a GoFundMe campaign for the funeral? If Tim Ball was so impoverished, how was he able to take Mann to court in the first place?
What affidavit? Where did Mann fail to comply with a court order? Again, you just keep claiming things with no evidence.
These questions are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
THe evidence for both is the court documents that you quite clearly have never actually read.
But you can’t point to any actual passages in the court documents saying this.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are a miserable person who ignored the actual quote from the Judge.
The quote from the judge says nothing of Mann refusing discovery or failing to comply with a court order. But I do recognize that you struggle with literacy so I’ll give you a chance to explain what you think the quoted passages mean, and then we can correct your misconceptions.
In other words, the actual court documents say exactly the opposite of what AJ has been claiming.
So much for his claims to having actually read the court documents.
The reason for the summary judgement was precisely because Mann had failed to reply to interrogatories.
Are you really this ignorant?
Nowhere is this stated in the summary judgement. You people’s desire to engage in a collective delusion is really quite something.
He’s a climate scientist, he doesn’t do research, he just assumes that if he wants it to be true, it must be.
Speaking of not offering a shred of evidence, AlanJ continues to slime himself.
So if Mann claims it, it must be true. Who cares what actual lawyers say.
Your estimate of a few hundred dollars shows your general ignorance. You probably will start high school in a few more years.
Suck a slimy position. If bankrupted them, Ball’s widow had to do a GoFundme to pay for his funeral.
But after what I heard in that trial about Mann’s words and actions nothing would surprise me from anyone that would defend Mann.
You guys compliment each other nicely.
So all estimates, even ones compiled by experts, are lies according to you and The Futile Wail? Is that correct – are all estimates lies in your unassailable opinion?
A WAG presented as a WAG is a WAG, the lie is pretending to know that Mann owes Ball’s estate some substantial sum of money.
As you are no doubt aware if you’d bothered to read the posts (or, in fact, had the ability to read at all) the estimates given are not ‘WAGs’ but accurate estimates from legal professionals. Your laymans opinion on what constitutes an accurate legal estimate is completely irrelevant.
I don’t even care what the estimate is, you haven’t provided a single iota of evidence that Mann has not paid what is owed, whether you think it’s $1 or $1,000,000. That’s the crux of the issue. Everything being presented in rumor and hearsay from people who have no insight into the particulars of the case.
This never bothered you when they were estimates of sea ice extent, sea level rise, regional average temperature or global average temperature, did they? All of those are estimates from professionals without evidence and yet you accept them but dismiss others. You’re a hypocrite, your worthless and insulting opinion on this and, indeed, most matters is irrelevant – in fact I would go so far as to say that your ridiculous blunderings are solely providing mirth and an insight into the severe lack of intelligence of alarmists. Give it up, you’re just embarrassing yourself now.
You can attempt to pivot and deflect all you want, the fact remains that none of you can provide any evidence to substantiate the allegation you’re making, and you all know it.
I’ve given you the answer, hypocrite, your refusal to accept it is irrelevant.
This isn’t meant as a direct response to Richard. I’m just tagging along at the bottom of this subthread. The court documents can be downloaded from the Supreme Court of British Columbia website. The case number is S111913. It may also be listed as VLC-S-S-111913. I think the charge is $5 (or at least it was). I actually downloaded the court documents at one point (unfortunately prior to the Ball judgement) to review myself. Fair warning…the court documents are NOT school or work appropriate. I’m not kidding about this. There are some VERY disturbing facts regarding a party to the case (John O’Sullivan) who runs Principia Scientific International. You have been warned. Anyway, my point is that it is possible that any costs Mann is responsible for will be available in the court docket. However, reading the judgement which says “All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.” made it sound like Mann is responsible for court costs and not necessarily Ball’s legal counsel at least to this layperson. I’m more than happy to be wrong about that though if someone can provide the proof.
I’m a layperson as well, but it appears that in English law (and by extension the former loyal colonies and dominions) “costs” includes at least legal costs.
At least to the extent that wikipedia is accurate – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law
Yeah…thinking more on it…costs of application and costs of action…sems like one of those might include legal counsel.
I think that “the application” is the application for summary judgement, and “the action” is the case which was dismissed.
Legalese is a foreign language using familiar words, so it would be great if somebody steps in to translate for us 🙂
On a related note, now that the Simberg and Steyn cases have been decided, Nation Review is pursuing Mann for costs in the case against it which was dismissed.
Yeah I saw that. The amount was in the court documents. I don’t remember what it was exactly, but I thought I recall it being on the order of $10,000.
According to the link to National Review (got it right this time) on Judith Curry’s blog, it’s just over a million.
Interesting. The figure I was recalling was $9588. But…I confused the payout party because the top of the order said Defendants: National Review, Inc. et al. while the payout was ordered specifically to Competitive Enterprise Institute and…wait for it…Rand Simburg. That’s right…Mann was ordered to pay Simburg. That means the $1001 judgement against Simburg doesn’t even cover the cost the judge ordered Mann to pay him. I have no idea if Mann will have to pay that or not…the legal system is so confusing.
It can get very expensive to say “I was right” 🙁
Yes, you are wrong. In BC, ‘costs’ includes the filing fees and disbursements, AND a substantial portion of the legal fees. Party and party costs generally amount to 2/3 to 3/4 of the actual fees incurred. Special costs will bring that up to around 90%. Mann IS responsible for Ball’s legal fees, but Dr. Ball must have those costs assessed in order to be able to collect them.
AJ, You continue to blather about matters about which you know nothing. The law in BC on costs, is NOT the same thing as in the USA.
Under US federal law, and generally, ‘costs’ refers to the disbursements incurred in prosecuting the action, such as filing fees and transcripts. The lawyers are covered under ‘fees’ and there are few situations where ‘fees’ are recoverable under US Federal law.
In common law countries, such as Canada, Australia, NZ, the UK etc. ‘costs’ include the legal fees and the disbursements. Not all of the legal fees will be recoverable.
From the BC Supreme Court website:
“There are different kinds of “costs” awards.
Party and Party Costs: The most common costs. These are calculated based on the tariff set out in Appendix B of the Supreme Court Rules
Special Costs: Occasionally, if there has been reprehensible conduct in the course of the action, such as fraud, the court may order that “special costs” be paid to the successful party. Special costs are higher and approximate actual legal fees. You can apply for special costs even if you are not represented by a lawyer. However, there must be a very good reason for the Court to order special costs.
…
If you obtain an order for costs after a trial, you can take out an appointment with the registrar to assess the costs as soon as the order providing for costs is entered.”
It does not appear from anything publicly available, that Dr. Ball ever took out an appointment to have his costs assessed. That can still be done, if Mrs. Ball were so inclined. She need only instruct her lawyers to do so. It is intriguing that that has not been done.
Others have estimated the result of an assessment of Dr. Ball’s legal fees. Whatever the number, and something over half a million would be likely, the assessment officers’ report becomes a Judgement of the Court, equivalent to a judgement for damages.
I speculate that Dr. Ball and/or the lawyers despaired of any hope of collecting from Mann. HOWEVER in this they are wrong. A ‘foreign’ judgement may be filed, and exemplified in Pennsylvania into a state court judgement in PA. At which point, Mann’s assets would be subject to seizure and his bank accounts and University salary garnished. At that point if I were acting for Dr. Ball’s estate, I would require that any payment against the judgement for costs must come from Mann’s personal chequing account, not from his lawyer or from any third party. So that Mann could never again claim that he
‘had not paid a penny’.
That’s not really what I’m arguing here. It’s entirely possible that Mann is on the hook for paying Ball’s legal fees, or maybe he isn’t. No one here knows, or seems to have any primary source saying one way or another.
But the important point is that people are just claiming, based on nothing whatsoever, that Mann is in dereliction of paying court ordered costs. No one can provide a single scrap of evidence substantiating this. There is no indication, anywhere, that Mann has refused to pay something he legally owes. It’s pure conjecture.
The other point I’m arguing is that the case against Ball was not dismissed due to Mann refusing to comply with discovery, as people in this thread are claiming (again based on literally nothing except their own vivid imaginations).
Re the legal fees, the primary source is the Judgment on the motion to dismiss for delay.
[18] Those are my reasons, counsel. Costs?
[19] MR. SCHERR: I would, of course, ask for costs for the defendant, given the dismissal of the action.
[20] MR. MCCONCHIE: Costs follow the event. I have no quarrel with that.
[21] THE COURT: All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.
That leaves the exact amount and payment thereof, to be dealt with later. Somewhere in Mann’s deposition by Steyn, he admits to the dismissal and later states, that he ‘has never paid a penny’. The deposition has been posted in various places, iirc, and an audio version replayed as a podcast during the trial in DC. So that is to anyone who is actually thinking about it, positive evidence that Mann owes money and has not paid.
As to ‘Mann refusing to comply with discovery’, that was the entire basis of the delay in the trial. His refusals were documented in the affidavits filed by Dr. Ball, but the instances of refusal *were not the basis of the motion*. They were the reason for the motion, but the basis was *delay*. The affidavits were filed with the Court, and are, iirc available online for a charge. I read them long ago.
This was the Court’s reasoning *on delay*.
[7] There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.
[8] I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no
evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he
provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all.
The underlying reason for his delay was his refusal to provide discovery. There were previous motions to compel discovery but he never did.
He does seem to have a rather idiosyncratic approach to winning friends and influencing people, but I think that was from his comments regarding the appeal rather than from the appeal itself.
Let’s hope for his sake that the court remains blissfully unaware of Steyn’s public comments.
He has expressed that opinion for quite some time.
The court is supposed to be impartial.
Ooh, another downvote.
Has Steyn not expressed that opinion in the past, or are courts not meant to be impartial?
AlanJ really hates it when people disagree with him.
I don’t know who it was, but it seemed a rather strange reaction to a rather simple statement of facts.
How’s that gone for him in court?
Are you saying the court’s impartiality leaves something to be desired?
The left has always been opposed to impartial courts. In their world view, courts are required to always agree with them.
We’ll see, shan’t we – it isn’t over by a long shot.
It will go well in the end. Even if it has to go to SCOTUS.
$1 for actual damages, $1 million for Mann’s hurt feelings.
As long as their guy wins, and those who disagree with them are punished, all is good in the world.
Exactly. The idea of objective, impartial justice is anathema to the Left.
Tell us more about ‘made up lies’…
How are they special?
Do they differ from deflection lies in any way?
For once, please read with the intention of understanding, rather than the intention of finding something to whine about.
Your quote is not part of the legal complaint.
I’m no lawyer but I do watch a Perry Mason TV show rerun everyday and he always wins his cases
I believe the strongest defense is the eighth amendment:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The SCOTUS has had cases defining excessive punitive damages;
There is one or more mathematical ratios of actual damages versus punitive damages used as a rule of thumb for an eighth amendment violation. One case used 4X and another used 10x. I don’t know if the ratio would be unique for every case.
Michael Mann is a Horse’s Ass (no offense to horses) and his Fraudulent Hockey Stink Chart is a Tree Ring Circus. He’s ugly too. His tweets attacking conservatives and Trump make this paragraph seem like a complement.
‘I’m no lawyer but I do watch a Perry Mason TV show rerun everyday and he always wins his cases.’
Typically when the actual guilty party stands up in the court room and confesses. I don’t see Mann doing that.
The funny part about Piltdown Mann complaining about being defamed is all of his gutter troll remarks about others being republished and publicly discussed.
After the trial my main comment was how at least now we’ll see what type of supposed humans still support him publicly after all that so that we will know them, AlanJ and Final Nail filled that role completely.
i would leave the public sphere after publicly defending the character of Mann
Frankly I was expecting all of them (Simon as well) to change their names at the very least – it seems that they are all utterly shameless.
“I do watch a Perry Mason TV show rerun everyday”
I would also suggest learning the difference between “everyday” and “every day”.
He must watch it every day and still finds it a bit everyday!
I agree with him – I find Rumpole to be far better, if somewhat less melodramatic.
Mr. Legal Layman here.
How can anyone pick and choose which court a civil suit is filed in?
The legal rules say that you should file the case either where the case arose (difficult as it was online but possible if it was a print newspaper) or where the defendant(s) resides, although they give broad discretion in cases where there are multiple defendants. In this case one of the original defendants had an office in the district of Columbia so they got away with picking the venue. I still think that when the two original defendants were dropped from the case it should’ve been moved to Rand Simberg’s district but that’s got doubtful legal validity!
As a general rule, it sticks where it stuck. The legal reason is not to waste court time in a do-over.
The cowardly National Review should kick in a bunch of the 5 million as they cut and ran when the going got tough.
Other way round – they stuck in there until it was proven that Mann had no grounds to sue them.
Not that I remember. They stopped carrying his column and part ways. But I stopped reading NR over a decade ago.
Rand Simberg is a freelance writer I believe and he is still writing articles for the National Review – the latest one was dated March 2024.
I am very thrilled by Steyn going against this idiotic case. Hear hear.
i am from the Netherlands and do not understand USA/state different lawsystems and think that Mann is a fraud but the hockeystick theory was not at trail?
whatever I hop and stand behind that gutsy in the wheelchair and wish him all the best.
Technically, you are correct. The lawsuit is Mann v Steyn, not Mann’s hockeystick v Steyn. But in reality, it is Mann’s hockeystick v Steyn. And Steyn will win on appeal (or eventually on appeal of appeal), for the various reasons given above.
It’s obvious that climate change in the popular rendering is a religion, not a science; the contrived hockey stick is a pagan symbol, not a scientific construct; and the evil little goblins at the center of the smoking pentagram are pathetic unmannly semi-human vermin with stunted intellects, stunted morals, stunted integrity, stunted gonads, and a foul yellow band of simpering cowardice dripping down their hairy backsides. Other than that they are a swell lot of amphibious subspecies.
No, no – don’t hold back, say what you really think! 😈
Richard, I admire your insight in recognizing I didn’t reveal the really awful stuff. Saving that for the wake.
Wonderful Mind picture! Thanks.
Styne is lucky his surname was not Trump
Mann’s Hocket Stink Chart was published in 1998 and he filed the Styne lawsuit in 2012
Almost all conservatives criticized Mann’s chart for 14 years before he decided to pick on Styne
Why choose Styne?
Maybe because Styne started working as a Rush Limbaugh substitute host in early 2012. and that brought him a lot of leftist attention and derision.
Styne became a very visible (audible) conservative and conservatives who get a lot of attention are always the first targets for hostile conservative hating leftists. Mann is a very hostile leftist, based on his Tweets.
2 little things to add there.
It wasn’t just conservatives that trashed Mann’s junk science, it was everyone in the scientific field – as soon as McIntyre and McKittrick released their work on dissecting the hockey stick fraud.
The second thing is that Steyn and Simberg were not the original targets of the case – they were the authors but the big prizes were the publishers, Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review. Steyn and Simberg are very small fry when you look at the international news scene but CEI and NR were (and are) thorns in the side of Mann’s alarmist beast and he went after them with this lawsuit, intending to shut them down and bankrupt them. That he missed entirely is no real surprise when discussing the many failures of Mann.
Who is this “Styne” you speak of?
I’m not getting you nor Steyn.
This was largely due to Steyn’s (and team’s) maneuvering to dismiss the case.
Yeah. But the legal case wasn’t built on this. This was the interpretation in the press.
J6 was absolutely tangentially relevant to the case.
This is by no means represent conflict of interest (or wtf they allege). Btw a sizeable proportion of the general population is not fond of fox and the jury should represent the general population.
This is grasping at straws. The main problem for Steyn was (is) that he had alleged fraud. This is not a freedom of speech issue and it has to be substantiated, and it was so evidently baseless that it sealed the verdict. FYI it wouldn’t have been a FoS issue even if Mann’s results had been faulty ‘cos scientific errors and fraud are two different things. But Mann’s results are scientifically valid.
As has been pointed out ad nauseum, nyogi, Mann’s ‘work’ has been completely discredited by several hundred of his peers and at least 3 Nobel laureates (real ones!). His results may be politically convenient but they have never been ‘scientifically valid’. As to the rest, it is immaterial to the case as to whether Steyn called the hockey stick a fraud or not – Mann failed to prove his case to the commonly held legal requirement, even though the judge mistakenly accepted it. Contrary to your ill-informed opinion, the court record clearly shows it was Mann, not Steyn, that delayed due process and, when finally in court, it was Mann’s friend who was filmed jury tampering. Again, despite your ill-informed opinion, there is a clear case of prejudice or conflict of interest in the jury which should have been addressed. The fact that so many mistakes were made and allowed to stand absolutely beggars belief to me, it’s completely unprofessional and amateurish behaviour – I did wonder if Mann’s team and the judge were trying to throw the case so neither would be held accountable as this seemed the most likely explanation.
Agree, it is not scientifically valid.
Apart from the PCA centering error, the hockey stick is a long proxy of tree rings ending ~1960 with some temperature data tacked on the right side showing what the proxies did not. That alone invalidates the message. Either it should have been a long proxy or a temperature set, not a combination.
Existing temperature sets do not show a “stick handle” and the tree rings do not show a temperature “blade”. So what is this foolish construction of his? Mostly it was an effort to pretend there was no MWP, something well documented in thousands of surviving documents and records.
The IPCC, in an extraordinary deviation from scientific principles, accepted the paper’s pretensions as valid, and in violation of their own rules for admitting literature for consideration. (They accepted the paper even though it had not been published by the closing date). Above all, this proved that the IPCC is not an honorable scientific organization because they pretended that MBH98 claims are true, and advised policies based upon its fraudulent claims. No one thinks it is valid (save some unread fools) but a certain group finds it very convenient, so they tout it.
Steyn v.s. Mann was tort protecting tout.
Huh, another expert. Nice to see so many people with Encyclopedic knowledge.
Oh, I didn’t know that 🙂 No, of course it doesn’t do anything like that. This paper (actually it was multiple papers at that time from multiple authors, the fact that you deniers picked out MBH98 alone is also telling) is about reconstruction up to 1950, the rest is just demonstration (and for better smoothing), it doesn’t affect anything.
Sure about that?
It was so well documented there was consensus about it, right? 😉 The actual story is much more sober, and no, what you say is not right. It had been a very well established hypothesis from the 60s and it did provide a very rudimentary temperature reconstruction. When much more accurate reconstructions came out (MBH98 was among the first ones) it turned out that MWP was a North Atlantic phenomenon. Ie. science has (as usual) developed and now we can see much more clearly.
Again, you peddle things here that can be easily checked to be false. MBH99 (not 98) appeared (among others!) in IPCC TAR (2001). I hope I don’t have to explain it further.
There has been no ‘consensus’ on the hockey stick – in fact quite the opposite, most of the scientists that have seen the stick graph and the 2 papers (MBH98 & MBH99) have trashed them as junk science – the proxies are crap and the methodology is appalling. The only reason they were ever used is because Mann inveigled himself into the IPCC as a lead author and refused to allow any other data apart from his to be used. It’s a complete and utter pile of mediocre garbage.
Yeah, see the list down from bdgwx, all those scientists are trashing it 😉
Exactly, this is why so many scientist replicated his results. Because he forced them to do so. He visited each and every one of them and told them he would (deleted for decency).
In other words, he proved his case to the commonly held legal requirement 😉
Yeah, it was really “several hundred” 😉 As for the Nobel laureates, the expression “Nobel disease” might ring familiar to you.
No, the exact opposite is true. It was the fact that Steyn called it a fraud that constituted defamation. This, nothing else. From that point on it’s not just an opinion. And if it’s alleged without evidence, then it is defamation. And this is what actually happened according to the US legal system. I can’t understand how you guy here are unable to understand this simple point. Furthermore, it is still defamation even if the science is bad. The fact that the science is right is actually beside the point here.
The reason that “you guy(?) here are unable to understand this simple point.” Because, nyogi, there were so many mistakes, inaccurate points of law and bad practices made by Mann’s lawyers, the jury and the judge that in any other district this would have been a mistrial. As it is either the points of law will be successfully challenged or it will be overturned on appeal. It’s not a case of not understanding it, it’s a case of appallingly bad courts – if you or any other alarmist had been in the same situation I’d be calling for the same thing. It wasn’t a trial, it was an amateurish joke.
I agree, literally everyone with the exception of Steyn and his team. 😉 Just kidding… If you for a long time consistently and persistently have to assume everyone (except your side) is wrong maybe you should consider they are not entirely wrong.
It amazing how stupid Mann apologists are since they refuse to accept that Bristlecone tree ring data was NOT for temperature but that is how Mannfraud used it which right from the start invalidated that paper which was also coving just a small area of Northern Hemisphere thus a tiny sampling size to be making absurd sweeping claims.
It came to the right result, therefore it must have been a valid study.
Mark, you always pick a fight you can’t win. Now you try to be bristleconing in a confined space… Bad boy.
Oh, I see, another expert 😉 I love you deniers, you always come up with these things you evidently clueless about. This is the entertainment side of WUWT.
Okay, why is Bristlecone not a good temperature proxy? Perhaps we should ask some experts. Who are the experts? Ah, yes, the letters from MBH, then we have Briffa, etc etc. My guess is that in response, you’ll come up with a mainly misunderstood presentation from an undergrad.
You know I’m not an expert either. I don’t know much about this Bristecone thingie. But my experience with experts is that they extremely rarely make stupid mistakes in their fields. Maybe in a fresh study there is something here or there. But this is not even a fresh study (not to mention it’s been replicated numerous times using quite different proxies).
My guess is that this Bristlecone thing is “not even wrong“. It’s like claiming that copper is an electrical insulator because cats love yodeling. My guess is that these reconstructions do not hinge on Bristlecone data and apart from that Bristlecone can be used as a proxy with sufficient care. But we should ask an expert.
Experts come up with wrong conclusions all the time. Asking for expert opinions gives opinions, not facts. Show some proof that the proxies actually do reflect historical temperature.
Maybe. But again I can’t understand you. This argument is actually against you. ‘Cos if experts are often wrong what can we claim about non-experts? My guess is that non-experts are catastrophically and persistently wrong in fields where experts are often wrong.
BTW, for the record, I claimed that experts would rarely make stupid mistakes. I didn’t claim they were always right. Stupid mistakes and not understanding even the basics is the territory of non-experts.
Well, aside from terminology (ie. a fact here is more like a measurement or observation) experts’ opinion is something you’d better take into account.
Don’t want to and don’t have to. This is a field of science and I’m not an expert. Furthermore, science itself is unaffected whether I have managed to convince an other outsider. And pls note that there’s proof. There are loads of introductory material for non-experts, please look it up yourself.
An expert who does not have science to back up a statement is not an expert on that question. You can try to twist logic around all you want, but you just keep spouting gibberish. As to proxies, until you prove them out by experiment they are just guesses and cannot give you temperatures to tenths of a degree. A metrologist would laugh at what alarmists’ calculations.
Several hundred? Did you mean corroborated by several hundred instead?
1998 Jones 10.1191/095968398667194956 – High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures
1998 Pollack 10.1126/science.282.5387.279 – Climate change record in subsurface temperatures: A global perspective
2000 Crowley 10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51 – How Warm was the Medieval Warm Period
2001 Briffa 10.1029/2000JD900617 – Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network
2003 Mann 10.1029/2003GL017814 – Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia
2004 Huang 10.1029/2004GL019781 – Merging information from different resources for new insights into climate change in the past and future
2005 Oerlemans 10.1126/science.1107046 – Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records
2005 Moberg 10.1038/nature03265 – Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data
2005 Huybers 10.1029/2004GL021750 – Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance”
2006 D’Arrigo 10.1029/2005JD006352 – On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming
2006 NRC 10.17226/11676 – Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
2007 Wahl 10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7 – Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures
2010 Ljungqvist 10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x – A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra‐tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia
2012 Li 10.1198/jasa.2010.ap09379 – The Value of Multiproxy Reconstruction of Past Climate
2012 Shakun 10.1038/nature10915 – Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
2013 Marcott 10.1126/science.122802 – A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years
2013 Tingley 10.1038/nature11969 – Recent temperature extremes at high northern latitudes unprecedented in the past 600 years
2014 Crowley 10.1002/2013EF000216 – Recent global temperature “plateau” in the context of a new proxy reconstruction
2016 Hakim 10.1002/2016JD024751 – The Last Millennium Climate Reanalysis Project
2016 Wilson 10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.12.005 – Last millennium northern hemisphere summer temperatures from tree rings
2017 PAGES2K 10.1038/sdata.2017.88 – A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era
2018 Esper – Large Scale Millennial-Length Temperature Reconstruction from Tree Rings
2019 Neukom 10.1038/s41586-019-1401-2 – No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era
2019 PAGES2K 10.1038/s41561-019-0400-0 – Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era
2020 Kaufman 10.1038/s41597-020-0530-7 – Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach
2020 Westerhold 10.1126/science.aba6853 – An astronomically dated record of Earth’s climate and its predictability over the last 66 million years
2021 King 10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0661.1 – A Data Assimilation Approach to Last Millennium Temperature Field Reconstruction
2021 Osman 10.1038/s41586-021-03984-4 – Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum
2021 Bova 10.1038/s41586-020-03155-x – Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial
2021 Buntgen 10.1038/s41467-021-23627-6 – The influence of decision-making in tree ring-based climate reconstructions
2022 Thompson 10.1126/sciadv.abj6535 – Northern Hemisphere Vegetation Change Drives Holocene Thermal Maximum
2022 Erb 10.5194/cp-18-2599-2022 – Reconstructing Holocene temperatures in time and space using paleoclimate data assimilation
2022 Anchukaitis 10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107537 – Progress and uncertainties in global and hemispheric temperature reconstructions of the Common Era
Which of these proves that the proxies actually have meaning at the required resolution?
All of them. Though to be pedantic since hypothesis are falsified and not truthified it would have been more appropriate to ask which ones falsified the utility of proxies. My response would have been none of them.
You just said that a hypothesis should be accepted as truth until someone falsifies it. I would think any rational person would like to see experimental results that support the hypothesis. Maybe you and the other trolls should learn a little about engineering and logic to understand the real world and not just your modeled world.
The “engineered answer” is the one good enough to act on. Per bdgwx’s biblio, as the iceberg tip, that ship’s long since sailed.
The real choice is on how to respond. Except for the bizarre geo eng “solutions”, we should be open to adaptation as well as to fossil fuel use burn rate minimization. These fuels will be burnt up and will then be functionally, gone. Since the only question is, how fast, we need to cost/benefit out what can be done to slow down the inevitable.
What’s the problem? Why do we need a solution?
Begin with the undeniable modern warming trends compared to those temps in bdgwx’s biblio. Then, consider the – also undeniable – current and upcoming pestilence, fungilence, droughts, floods, polar excursions, and so on. Then, since they are also undeniably, predominantly from us, work for ways to reduce/adapt to, them.
Bigger pic, the fossil fuel burning will mostly be over within a couple/three generations. Find replacements for it before then…
I don’t know what you’re smoking, but in my lifetime nothing much has changed in the climate where I live. Other commenters have said the same. You oviously don’t know what the word “undeniable” means.
Where do you live?
Great Lakes region. And no, the climate hasn’t changed. By the way, 2012 was our last hot summer.
Live. Learn. Use data that is beyond the 8 cubic meters that you can sense surrounding you.
https://toolkit.climate.gov/regions/great-lakes#:~:text=These%20lake%20surface%20temperatures%20are,toxic%20algae%20in%20the%20lakes.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/great-lakes
https://greatlakes.org/2022/05/4-ways-climate-change-is-challenging-the-great-lakes/
https://wicci.wisc.edu/great-lakes-working-group/
Many more…
Did you even look at the Great Lakes temperature graphs? I don’t see a hockey stick. And why are the lake levels high? Because the water all evaporated from the extreme heat? The anecdotal and textual gibberish without facts is just following the party line. We still plant flowers at the same time. I still shovel snow. As a matter of fact, we’ve had snow flurries the last two days. I don’t live down Momma’s basement so I’m not like you. I actually get around and see what’s going on.
The Lawsuit was FILED by DR. Mann who alleged Defamation that was what the trial was about nothing more and it wasn’t scientifically valid because the Bristlecone tree ring data was never about temperature at all that alone invalidate his claims since it is gross misuse of data that invalidated his paper.
The jury didn’t find any defamation as Dr. Mann did well since he filed that bogus lawsuit.
That may be true. However, contrarians billed it as a trial against the science. For example, the popular podcast “Climate Change on Trial” did just that. It was even the title of the podcast. It was the court case that was finally going to declare the science invalid once and for all.
The jury found that Steyn had defamed Mann with compensatory damages of $1 and punitive damages of $1,000,000. If you go to the DC Superior Court case search website select Smart Search and enter case # 2012-CA-008263-B. Open the case. Wait for it to fully load. Scroll down to “Other Documents” and download the “Order Attachments”. Attachment A pages 1 and 2 contain the judgment against Steyn.
The Jury never once stated he was guilty of defamation and that $1 “compensatory damages” just one freaking dollar that was made clear there was NO defamation you moron!
Not only that there was no specific instance of defamation specified causing any damage which YOU hilariously overlooked as he was promoted twice sold several books gets fawning interviews increase in salary and more.
Your link failed,
No cases match your search
Jury Verdict Form 2/9/2024 pg. 6 in section II (Defendant Mark Steyn) part A (Liability):
Jury Verdict Form 2/9/2024 pg. 5 in section II (Defendant Mark Steyn):
a) Steyn’s quotation of Simberg’s post: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
b) “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal of Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.”
c) “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”
If you answered “Yes” to question II(A)(5), please identify which statements by Defendant Steyn (listed as “a” through “c” above), for which you answered “Yes” to all of the above questions in section II(A) and then proceed to question II(B)(i)(1). Response: a, c
Jury Foreperson: 931
Date: 2/8/2024
I double-checked. It is working.
I double-checked. Entering 2012-CA-008263-B into the search box finds the case.
I hate to tell you, but many courts just aren’t very good at their jobs, but to get to a court that is, is often labourious and expensive. Look at what Conrad Black was put through, and the costs to investors in his companies. He was vindicated, finally, but at what cost?
How is Mann doing today? Anyone, even a friend, listening to the proceedings would tend to draw aside the hem of their garments from this sad little misanthrope with only one supporter, the madly funny Science Guy, no amici curiae, a long tally of unpleasant and sexist abuse, suspicious science, selective memory failure et al. Not a good advocate for’climate science’ whatever that is; more A Disgtace to the Profession