Well, the fact that I even have to explain this shows what a cowardly, snivelling, career-safe, intellectually feeble, morally compromised age we inhabit. By rights, Mann v Steyn should be the 21st-century equivalent of the Scopes monkey trial, with believers in free speech, proponents of the scientific method and sympathetic millionaires and billionaires all piling in to Steyn’s defence with op eds, learned papers, and lavish funds to buy the hottest of hotshot lawyers.
Instead, what do I read?
The first law of Statism is that those opposed to the State must be destroyed.
Always has been, and always will be,
The current crop of statists has learned well from Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
Hey, two of my favourite non-scientist writers sceptical of climate change. I’d be more generous with my praise but the amount of ass-kissing Steyn gets must be almost unbearable to mere mortals.
Honestly, I thought Mann and his handlers would have threw in the towel by now. Steyn isn’t shutting up and discovery will require Mann to give up his secret science of tree rings/temp reconstruction, any emails regarding trying to cover up bad science methods and the team effort to evade FOIA. If the thing goes to trial then it’ll be like Xmas morning for sceptics since those email may provide new leads to other questionable CAGW research. Wouldn’t it be ironic if another Canadian (Canadian-ish anyway) delivers the second gut punch to Mann. McIntyre being the first. Hockey is our game, I guess.
The junk science of anthropogenic global warming has been used to damage the economies of Europe and North America, Australia et al.
The results and evidence presented at this trial is vital to completely discrediting the CO2 sky is falling crowd, before the damage they’ve caused can be fully reversed.
Every oil, gas, coal and manufacturing operation has been harmed by the AGW religion being bowed down to by governments.
Indeed, where is the support from those who understand this and have the personal resources to fund Steyn’s defense?
It stinks.. A lot of important people have used Mr Manns work as the linchpin of their own political shenanigans.. This green money has gone far and wide, contaminating our entire political system..
So its not Mann vs Steyn its Steyn vs THE SYSTEM.. 2.5 million rich people and their government worker enablers vs one guy..
There is nothing new about bad people using the greater good to protect themselves.. Add oxy to moron to get that big bag of other peoples money..
I think I hear a train whistle of in the distance..
LCB I suspect Mann’s legal strategy is to convince a judge he doesn’t have to turn over his data because the question has already been settled, equating it with having to prove gravity exists. I know it sounds ridiculous but with society and thus the judicial system seeming more concerned with potential rather than reality, maybe they could pull it off. I don’t see how with the repudiation of his ridiculous hockey stick, it can’t be used to show his “reputation” is not what it seems. But would this be material in a legal proceeding? Perhaps the legal types could weigh in on this.
Judges make strange decisions all the time and this case already has that stain. I don’t trust the legal system on the issue of CAGW and the reputations of the climatologists.
I remember thinking that at first. If you go one step further you can see why “the support from those who understand this and have the personal resources to fund Steyn’s defense” would be risky. The story would move from slander or libel by Steyn and company to KOCH BROTHERS, OIL BARONS, RWNJNs ARE FUNDING THE CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER MACHINE!!!! The science fraud part of the story would be completely forgotten. IMO, that part of the story, uncovering the bad CAGW science, is as important as free speech. Promising to cover any losses after the trial would be better.
I understand what you’re saying. I guess it’s not technically impossible to successfully argue that Mann should not have to turn over any information surrounding the science and discussions about the Hockey Stick. It would be extremely bizarre logically since the entire case is about said Hockey Stick and whether or not it is fraudulent. That could only be determined by full disclosure of all material and data. To compare it to Steyn’s examples: regarding the Scopes Monkey Trial, it would be like saying that there was no case because both the Bible and two centuries of Christianity are proof of creationism. This would be like moving back to a trial standard similar Galileo’s era.
I think there is plenty of evidence that Mann used improper statistical methods to come up with his hockey stick. McIntyre and McKitrick have already shown that as well as A.W. Montford in his book “The Hockey Stick Illusion. There should be more than enough reliable climate scientists who would be happy to weigh in on the matter. Some already have.
I have been following this case from the beginning; Rand Simberg is a friend. The case revolves around an editorial he wrote for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Penn State University employed both Jerry Sandusky and Michael Mann, investigated both men, and in both cases found no wrongdoing. In Sandusky’s case the police were involved and he went to jail. Rand said that “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”. Mark Steyn thought that sentence quote-worthy and reposted it at NRO. And it is that sentence that triggered the lawsuit.
It is a low bar for the defendants in this lawsuit, and with Mark Steyn able to operate independently of the NRO and CEI, the discovery process will be much more thorough; Steyn just provided the lawyers of NRO and CEI increased flexibility.
Shamrock I to am concerned about the integrity of SCOTUS. I do believe there has been so much money spent, or wasted, and political capital invested in this anthropogenic scam,we could be about to see another injustice matching the scale of the Dred Scott decision.
The Dred Scott SCOTUS decision is the infamous politicized, big money impact decision which brought shame on the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It was made in the middle of the 1840’s or 1850’s I believe and became a contributor to both the continuation of slavery and the U.S.A. Civil War.
The money behind the Global/Climate misinformation effort is running as scared as the people who lost both money and credibility with the failure of the Carbon Tax Exchanges. Politicians are bought off with amazingly little donations if we use the Asset Backed Security backed mortgages as a recent example.
Mark Steyn will have a tough road and I also suspect a “foreigner” which he will be labelled, will not have favourable lower U.S. Court hearings. Cheers;
Yes that’s a good summary, thanks. The only thing I would mention is that the new judge said that the “molesting the data/Sandusky” bit is protected under free speech. It’s the part about fraudulent Hockey Stick that is the issue. I think Steyn’s site has that part of the ruling written up and posted. It also says that the judge, in ruling against throwing out the suit, was required to look at it in a way most favorable to Mann. A jury won’t have to look at it this way. Mann should have to prove that it is not terrible science and that he was actually harmed in some way, if I understand the law correctly.
If it is a fair trial then I can’t see how they can lose.
Good question, because I’m sure Michael Mann’s legal costs will be covered by those pushing hardest for the global warming campaign. The constant attempts to silence or flatten Steyn are through law suits. Court costs are killers.
Delingpole sounds a bit strained. His latest appears in the Spectator, which has the same ownership as the Telegram, but 1/15th the circulation. I hear he is to join breitbart’s UK spinnoff, but that doesn’t yet exist.
Steyn appears to be writing just for his own webpage. Unless the situation has changed very recently he has done nothing for the National Review since his late december outburst against the judge & the Orange Country Register, his other venue, had a recent note saying he had not sent anything in this year [since 13 Dec]. He used to write for real papers.
It might be considered a plus for climate-science naysayers that the comic fringe are not being given the outside help that is surely available, but are instead left to their own devices. The success of the PR campaign means they are not needed. Still Steyn must be a bit embarassed that Delingpole is whining on his behalf. At least for christians & muslims “martyr” means death for a cause, not financial insecurity.
+
Just a reminder of what this is “really” about —
// On Jan. 22, Judge Frederick Weisberg opened the way for a trial, stating, “Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.” //
I wonder if discovery will include HIS writings as well as Mann’s. Because “actual malice” is Steyn’s default position.
We are rapidly passing there being any point to attempting intelligent conversation with the bandits and loons who promote fear mongering for profit or personal status.
By firing his lawyers, Steyn opens the field, allowing his talent full range.
Win or lose in court, he still wins.
The 5 “inquiries” into the CRU emails, demonstrated who the real bandits are.
Yeah, because real scientists always falsely claim to be Nobel Prize winners and refuse to release their research to Freedom Of Information requests.
I could agree with the judge that the case is not so frivolous that it shouldn’t even be heard but I wouldn’t go farther than that. What gets me is that by Mann’s definition of libel, he himself has libeled another scientist Judith Curry, saying that she is a ‘serial climate misinformer’ and ‘anti-science’. He makes exactly the same kind of statements that he’s suing over. The fact that the hockey stick algorithm creates hockey stick graphs with random data is far and away enough to put calling it fraudulent beyond the pale of a personal and intentional attack on someone’s work and character even if they weren’t a public figure.
if only judges couldn’t be bought or intimidated