It’s always about the discovery process.
So, forget Steyn’s case – the court victories that count, in terms of the scientific (and political) consequences, are entirely due to Tim Ball. By tenaciously and bravely defending his actions for three long years the mild-mannered septaugenarian has single-handedly proved that the very core of government climate science is junk. Thereby, this instance of ‘science on trial’ is no less significant, in the broadest sociatal context, as the infamous Scope’s Monkey Trial of 1925.
Edit: This seems to be in dispute. Use a load of salt. It was put up on request by Kate, and as I don’t follow the lawsuits, I can’t comment.
The conclusion of this headline has been denied a couple of times since it was first pasted right in this august forum .
And as far asthe “broadest sociatal [sic] context” is concerned, this case has broader implications —
[…]
The key issue in the pending case over the quest for Mann’s e-mails involves“>http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2014/02/strange-bedfellows-and-fear-of-broad-impacts-of-mann-uva-court-ruling/”> the extent of Virginia’s state freedom of information laws, which ATI is using to request Mann’s documents. That issue has galvanized a coalition of 18 heavyweight press groups — including the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Associated Press, Reuters, NPR, Dow Jones, Politico, The Washington Post and others — who somewhat quietly penned a friend-of-the-court or “amicus” brief favoring disclosure of this type of e-mail.
A Precedent for ‘Tens of Thousands of Cases’?
Meanwhile, the National Academy of Sciences and a number of large higher education associations and other academic interests are supporting Mann’s position with their own legal brief. Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has written about relevant background for the scientific community. “The court clearly understood the potential consequences of the actions it is being asked to take,” Halpern wrote after attending the Virginia Supreme Court’s January 2014 hearing, “with multiple justices talking about how the interpretive standard they set will apply not just to this case but to tens of thousands of cases.”
[…]
They really should have known better. It’s not like they actually believe the AGW BS they peddle. Contrary to their claims about the “deniers” being lavishly funded by big oil, these guys know full well that they do it all on their own, and expected them to fold in the face of the expense of defending themselves.
(Gee, I wonder how long it will be before I hear the details of this on CBC….)
I can see why Steyn wants to end the expensive legal wrangling about procedure and just get on with the discovery process. Truth is a valid defense (except in human rights kangaroo courts).
When I saw this first at (I think) Bishop Hill, I saw a note from Dr. Ball that the lawsuits were still active. The article is based on a false assumption.
Be careful here3 – this article is false – Ask Tim Ball!
Dr. Tim Ball, a septagenarian rocks.
One real man made a difference!
His quote about Mann belonging in the state Penn rather than Penn State is priceless.
“The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.” In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.”
Well I guess the question that begs asking is “Is the case over or not?”
Unfortunately John O’Sullivan is a fraud himself, so nothing he writes can be trusted. Even Anthony Watts snips any links to his website, rightly so.
You can of course trust what Steyn writes, and his latest comments are very interesting:
http://www.steynonline.com/6131/michael-e-mann-sloppy-and-unethical
O’Sullivan seems to be anticipating events.
I will wait for Dr Ball to report.
After all it only takes the courts years to accomplish the obvious.
Political Junkie is correct, this is not correct. The court case is still on-going. I had a breif E-mail exchange with Tim last week.
Gretards just can’t give it up. Mann’s work is obviously fraudulent and if you don’t think so you are too @#*@$+$ stupid to vote and should stop exhaling immediately – to save the planet from your evil exhalations of CO2.
A hockey stick produced by a model that generates a hockey stick graph 90% of the time when random numbers are use for input. A hide-the-decline graph where he merged two disparate graphs to show unprecedented warming. It doesn’t take a genius to see it was BS but it does take a fool to believe it. Who’s the fools? The idiots who bought in and are too embarassed to admit they were, well, idiots for believing such drivel. Cowards too as I think about it.
The liars are on the Green Team. If you want to say Dr. Ball or John O’Sullivan are liars then back it up. Othewise, PFO.
Mann just caught a bad case of cold fusion.
Than caught the same political cold as Stalin.
So, Lance, if you know that the story is incorrect, why not just take it down. We went over all this territory last week, with the same conclusion. None other than Steve Macintyre investigated O’Sullivan’s fantasy — by talking with Ball himself — and learned that there was nothing to it.
Isn’t it important for people on our side to make sure that we only use information that is correct and true? You know, avoid doing what we accuse the alarmists of doing? Credibility is at stake.
MJ, different lance.
Yes, this story should be declared to in error. Kate was presumably misled.
Even assuming Tim Ball and Mark Steyn win a clear victory in court, what makes you think it’ll matter?
There’ll be no media coverage, or at best, be presented as BIG EVIL OIL badgering climate change saints with legal technicalities, highlighting the need for more AGW funding.
Try to bring up the facts and it’ll be dismissed as internet conspiracy theory claptrap.
Yep. So Weaver (and his backers who are currently being audited by the CRA for taking foreign funding to buy political influence in this country) get to use a retired climate professor with few resources to defend himself as a punching bag for their childish tantrum. All the press who were involved in publishing Tim Balls stories – The National Post, the Canadian “Free” Press – all ran for cover like scared rabbits at the first hint of a lawsuit by Weaver. They were too scared to actually start digging for the real story behind Weavers refusal to publicly debate his “science.” Every time Weaver makes a pronouncement in this town the local fish wrap breathlessly reports his every word on the editorial page. But when it comes to ANY media in this country reporting on the SLAPP against Tim Ball, the reasons why, and where the financial backing for it comes from – crickets. Just a bunch of cowards.
This is a great editorial by John O. REminds me of the editorials in the local rag blowing smoke up Weavers a$$. The twits on this thread who think this is a “story” need to go back and read it again, carefully. It’s an opinion! And it is attempting to generate interest in a subject that the Canadian media is too scared to dig into, despite all their pretensions of being seekers of truth. Steyn has shown that there is nothing better than a good offense. John O is demonstrating why this is the case and is going on the offense himself. Both are Americans – while the Canadian press shakes in their boots. Good for Kate for linking this.
And it poses the question – what is it that Weaver is so scared of? Why can’t this member of the B.C. legislature – a politician – present the data which proves he is being defamed in a court of law? What’s the problem? Furthermore, given his political crusade as a green candidate, why does Weaver have to resort to a SLAPP to silence a member of the public who is trying to debate Weaver in a public forum over his public activities while using public money? What does Weaver have to hide? Is this what we should expect from green party politicians when they gain power? A green NAZI regime where citizens are to be crushed if they deviate from the party line?
And Lance, you need to grow some cojones if you want to play with the adults.
A cursory glace at this matter indicates that although the lawsuit is still on…the result is in sight.
Failure to file a defense is an obvious blunder….
Canadian Rules of Civil Procedure mandate (not at the discretion of the Court Clerk/sitting Justice) a dismissal (with costs and other relief) of an action for delay.
“Farewell thy suit is cold”