More Left-Wing Abuse of the Courts for Political Repression Mann v. Steyn

[ksen]

I haven't read any of the links but what's the gist of Mann's suit against Steyn?

 

[maxparrish]

I haven't read any of the links but what's the gist of Mann's suit against Steyn?

If you read anything, read this from Legal Times...

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...scientist-sues-national-review-for-libel.html

 

[Nice Squirrel]

"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."

"If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up?" Steyn wrote. "Whether or not he's 'the Jerry Sandusky of climate change', he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his 'investigation' by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke."

In a July 23 letter to National Review, Mann's lawyer, John Williams of Cozen O'Connor, asked that the piece be removed. In an August 22 article, National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote that they would welcome a lawsuit as a way to further investigate Mann through discovery. The Competitive Enterprise Institute also rejected Mann's request for a retraction.

I believe this is slanderous and makes the suit valid. Mann will have no problem winning this in front of a jury especially since he asked for a retraction/apology and did not get one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at how you titled this thread you started. I can understand how your edits may have been rejected.
No, this article gives a sober timeline. Numerous studies have demonstrated no major errors,and especially no sort of fraud an the part of Mann and his compatriots. Alternatives to Mann's approach support his conclusions. That is all. I pointed out this article for its timeline overview for those who may want such a thing. And for the mentions of attempts to debunk the hockey stick that ended up poorly and incompetently done.

I will let anybody interested read and decide for themselves.

While I agree that his edits were no doubt correctly rejected that doesn't mean there is no bias. I've been reverted for putting a correct link behind some words that the Palestinians would prefer to not make so clear.

 

[ksen]

I haven't read any of the links but what's the gist of Mann's suit against Steyn?

If you read anything, read this from Legal Times...

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2...scientist-sues-national-review-for-libel.html

Ok, I read through your link and the actual complaint linked in it.

Comparing Micael Mann to a convicted child molester seems like libel to me as well as the continued claims that he fabricated his data even after numerous independent reports came out proving that he didn't fabricate his data.

It seems like a legit suit for a guy whose career depends on his reputation.

Steyn and Simberg got carried away in their rhetoric. Now a judge gets to decide if they were libelous or not. From what I've read at the link you gave me it sounds like they were.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I like the word "Tortfeasors".

 

[maxparrish]

"If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up?" Steyn wrote. "Whether or not he's 'the Jerry Sandusky of climate change', he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his 'investigation' by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke."

In a July 23 letter to National Review, Mann's lawyer, John Williams of Cozen O'Connor, asked that the piece be removed. In an August 22 article, National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote that they would welcome a lawsuit as a way to further investigate Mann through discovery. The Competitive Enterprise Institute also rejected Mann's request for a retraction.

I believe this is slanderous and makes the suit valid. Mann will have no problem winning this in front of a jury especially since he asked for a retraction/apology and did not get one.

I don't predict what juries will do, they are almost totally incompetent when it comes to issues of legal interpretation. However, I am very certain that even if he is convicted, it will be thrown out (as was Delay's). And it may not even make it to trial as their are several bites of the apple to go (the hearing on the Anti-Slapp suit, a future move to quash indictment, etc.).

Why? For several reasons:

First, Mann is a public figure - a point that, I don't believe, is in dispute. As a public figure Mann's lawyers must show that the defendants acted with actual malice, meaning that the defendants actually knew the information they published was false, or that they seriously doubted its truth.

It is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published, but the state of mind of the person who made the alleged libel. It is almost impossible for Mann to produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with actual malice because, I am certain, they believe (as I do) in what they wrote and published. No matter how crazy it is, if you believe it, you are immune.

Second, in addition to actual malice, the plaintiff must show that the defendants stated a fact as provably wrong, and damaging to the plaintiff. However the courts are not interested in disputes regarding competing views of theory, or of a scientific dispute, or generalized hyperbole. Statements that are opinions, that are hyperbolic expressions, no matter how much they are in poor taste are protected by the first amendment.
Expressions, including those Mann himself has used equating skepticism as holocaust denial , as well as ad homs and insults are all protected by the first amendment.

Calling someones scientific work "a sham" or "fraudulent" to question his intellect and reasoning is 100 percent within protected speech - as it should be.

Third, to question the adequacy or bias of Penn State and other investigations is also protected by the first amendment. It is quite absurd for Mann to cite the investigations as "proof" of his truth claims when it is the competence and bias of the groups clearing him that is part of the subject of political criticism.

It is perfectly legal for anyone on this board to write or say that George Zimmerman or OJ Simpson are murderers, or got away with murder. Yes, a government body investigated and found them not guilty, but that does not mean it is a "fact" that is beyond reproach or immune to accusations of bad faith or jury stupidity. It is simply someone's opinion.

Mind you, I believe that Steyn does not want this case to be dismissed. He sees this as a grand opportunity to introduce ClimateGate e-mails showing unethical, possibly illegal, and certainly venal conduct. He will relish tearing into the sham investigations of Mann, and Mann's falsehoods regarding his Nobel prize. He will enjoy it when his attorneys call numerous critics, such as Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry, and many others to convey both their analysis of his work and their dealings with him.

Will the courts really want a replay of the Scopes-Monkey trial, with scores of scientists, tons of documents, reams of studies sumbitted by both sides as "proof" of who is correct? I doubt it.

When someone here, or in any forum, calls skeptics or denialists “shills,” “liars,” or “frauds” , do you really wish to see a law suit?

I think not.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I believe this is slanderous and makes the suit valid. Mann will have no problem winning this in front of a jury especially since he asked for a retraction/apology and did not get one.

I don't predict what juries will do, they are almost totally incompetent when it comes to issues of legal interpretation.

Calling someone a pedophile in a professional setting and not taking it back or apologizing = slander.

 

[maxparrish]

I don't predict what juries will do, they are almost totally incompetent when it comes to issues of legal interpretation.

Calling someone a pedophile in a professional setting and not taking it back or apologizing = slander.

It depends if you are a public figure and if you believe it to be true, it is not slander. Moreover, where did you get the idea that the internet and journals of political opinion are "professional settings" for climate scientists?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

First, Mann is a public figure - a point that, I don't believe, is in dispute. As a public figure Mann's lawyers must show that the defendants acted with actual malice, meaning that the defendants actually knew the information they published was false, or that they seriously doubted its truth.

Mann is not a public figure. He only became public when his work was criticized.

It is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published, but the state of mind of the person who made the alleged libel. It is almost impossible for Mann to produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with actual malice because, I am certain, they believe (as I do) in what they wrote and published. No matter how crazy it is, if you believe it, you are immune.

Nope. See the recent Ventura case.

Second, in addition to actual malice, the plaintiff must show that the defendants stated a fact as provably wrong, and damaging to the plaintiff.

They equated him with a pedophile. Case closed.

Expressions, including those Mann himself has used equating skepticism as holocaust denial , as well as ad homs and insults are all protected by the first amendment.

They wished to harm him and his research as they explicitly called him out by name and equated him with a pedophile.

Calling someones scientific work "a sham" or "fraudulent" to question his intellect and reasoning is 100 percent within protected speech - as it should be.

Not if it has been proven wrong and they refuse to retract it. Also they equated him with a pedophile.

Third, to question the adequacy or bias of Penn State and other investigations is also protected by the first amendment. It is quite absurd for Mann to cite the investigations as "proof" of his truth claims when it is the competence and bias of the groups clearing him that is part of the subject of political criticism.

Not when you basically call someone a pedophile by equating him with Jerry Sandinsky.

Mind you, I believe that Steyn does not want this case to be dismissed. He sees this as a grand opportunity to introduce ClimateGate e-mails showing unethical, possibly illegal, and certainly venal conduct.

Actually no such emails exist. You might forget that the emails released were edited and taken out of context.

Will the courts really want a replay of the Scopes-Monkey trial, with scores of scientists, tons of documents, reams of studies sumbitted by both sides as "proof" of who is correct? I doubt it.

Mann is correct. It is up to the opposition to show that he is in fact a pedophile.

- - - Updated - - -

Calling someone a pedophile in a professional setting and not taking it back or apologizing = slander.

It depends if you are a public figure and if you believe it to be true, it is not slander. Moreover, where did you get the idea that the internet and journals of political opinion are "professional settings" for climate scientists?

He is being equated with a pedophile in a national publication.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Here is another set of successful libel cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell#Libel_cases

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right-wing makes it so that Corporations have the right to free speech and freedom of religion and they complain about some minor judicial case and say the left-wing is abusing the courts.

 

[maxparrish]

Mann is not a public figure. He only became public when his work was criticized.

Mann was a public figure before the alleged libel and long ago lost immunity as merely a "private person". A limited public figure (someone who is not an official) is anyone who engages in political and public activities of public interest, or is a subject of public interest prior to the suit. In 1998 he appeared on NBC, CBS, NPR, and CNN in interviews, hawking his hockey stick. In 2003 made a statement to Congress on Climate Science, reminding the public that he was the lead author of a chapter on the IPCC Third Climate Assessment report. He was investigated in a public climate controversy by the National Science Foundatoin, Penn State, and the EPA. He has been a part of the Climate gate controversy, and he participated in blog commentary. That horse left the barn long ago.

It is not measured by what a reasonable person would have published, but the state of mind of the person who made the alleged libel. It is almost impossible for Mann to produce clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with actual malice because, I am certain, they believe (as I do) in what they wrote and published. No matter how crazy it is, if you believe it, you are immune.

Nope. See the recent Ventura case.

I don't need to. Ventura apparently proved that the book author KNEW he was lieing.

Mind you, I believe that Steyn does not want this case to be dismissed. He sees this as a grand opportunity to introduce ClimateGate e-mails showing unethical, possibly illegal, and certainly venal conduct.

Actually no such emails exist. You might forget that the emails released were edited and taken out of context.

The emails do not exist, except they do exist but you claim they were all edited and all taken out of context? LOL...NS your approaching the limits coherence.

Will the courts really want a replay of the Scopes-Monkey trial, with scores of scientists, tons of documents, reams of studies sumbitted by both sides as "proof" of who is correct? I doubt it.

Mann is correct. It is up to the opposition to show that he is in fact a pedophile..

Since 90 percent of your post is a endlessly looping, mindless and false claim about metaphor, utterly devoid of seriousness I won't bother to comment.

 

[maxparrish]

Right-wing makes it so that Corporations have the right to free speech and freedom of religion and they complain about some minor judicial case and say the left-wing is abusing the courts.

Yes...yes...nothing to see here. After all, the left is just better at attacking the free speech of those who oppose their agenda.

 

[ZiprHead]

Words have meanings.

Fraudulent:
adjective
1. characterized by, involving, or proceeding from fraud, as actions, enterprise, methods, or gains:
"a fraudulent scheme to evade taxes."
2. given to or using fraud, as a person; cheating; dishonest.

Fraud:
noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: "mail fraud; election frauds."
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: "That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time."
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

Seems pretty clear to me Dr. Mann has not committed fraud nor is his work fraudulent.

Academic fraud is a very serious charge. I thinks he' got a pretty solid case.

 

[Underseer]

As some might recall on FRDB, Micheal Mann has been suing anyone who questions his "scientific" work on global climate change using terms like "fraudulent" or "bogus" or who implies that he is a charlatan in tweed. Sometime ago posters were sure that Mann must have had a strong basis and that Steyn, who disparaged his work in colorful metaphors (along with National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute) were in big trouble, and likely to lose.

These days, however, it looks like Mann is getting backlash; not just from the right but by a wide swath of MSM and law groups, including the ACLU.

http://www.steynonline.com/6527/once-more-into-the-striped-hose



http://www.steynonline.com/6522/my-new-best-friends

As you may have heard, Big Climate consensus-enforcer and fake Nobel Laureate Michael E Mann is suing me and a trio of co-defendants for disparaging his hockey stick. On Monday, as I mentioned the other day, various bodies from the ACLU to the Cato Institute filed a flurry of briefs with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. That in turn has prompted a slew of news stories on the case, the general gist of which you can get from the headlines:

Media and rights organizations defend National Review, et al. against Michael Mann (The Washington Post)

Climate scientist faces broad array of foes in suit vs. National Review (Reuters)

Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views (Fox News)

...and of course:

Hopefully Dr. Michael E. Mann Doesn't Sue Me For This Column (Forbes)

By contrast, the response from Doctor Fraudpants' dwindling band of ecophants has been somewhat muted. Mann diehard Oakden Wolf objected to that headline about "groups" rallying around and rewrote it:
There should be modifications of "Groups", i.e., "Conservative, climate skeptical, oil-friendly groups rally..."

Yes, indeed. It's just Koch-funded notorious right-wing denialist groups like the ACLU, The Washington Post, NBC News, and The Los Angeles Times coming out against Dr Mann. Nothing for you chaps in the Big Climate bubble to worry about.

Steve McIntyre summarized it this way:

I get the sense that the Washington libel community and U.S. national media have belatedly woken up to the potential threat of Mann v Steyn and that the tide is now starting to run strongly against Mann in the anti-SLAPP proceedings. The most visible evidence of this is an impressive Amici brief from the ACLU and an imposing list of 25 other media organizations.

Oh no!

You mean after the public smear job full of lies spread by the conservative propaganda machine, he's taking them to court and accusing them of lying?

[conservolibertarian] That's so unfair! This man is clearly persecuting the Fair And Balanced^TM media for the crime of trying to tell people the truth! When will this persecution ever end? It's so unfair! It's just so unfair! This is obviously part of that vast international conspiracy by 90% of the scientists on the planet that is being run from an obscure school in the UK! I knew it! Didn't I try to warn you people? [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This article is all I need to quote. There are enough links for followups to keep one reading for days. Today, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is serious global warming and it is largely man made.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
"Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree"

How many dozen citations do I have to post just to see you ignore the facts? Are these 97% of scientists all lying, wrongheaded left wingers?

http://www.theguardian.com/environm.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

"Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made
Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it"

Yeah all these fool scientists are wrong! Only those in the pay of Exxon/Mobil or the Kook brothers can be trusted!

You don't need to post "how many dozen" links on an issue not in dispute - the Mann suit is not over human caused global warming. To crank out more irrelevant links is a strawman. The issue is over Mann's credibility as a researcher and the basis for mocking him as a fraudster.

You claim is work has been validated and supported. FINE, give us an instance (e.g. A QUOTE) where that is true, where his "hockey stick" work is valid, and I will demonstrate your error. But I'm not going to look for evidence on your behalf.

The hockery stick timeline artcle I linked to demonstrates 6 studies that shows Mann and co.are neither wrong in their studies nor have done anything wrong. Further studies demonstrate the hockey stick chart is good science and stands. 97% of scientists surveyed find climate change caused by human activity to be good, sound science. Climate change denial is pseudo science on the level of creationism.

There is no credible evidence to support denialism, and the scientific consensus is very much against you.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I don't predict what juries will do, they are almost totally incompetent when it comes to issues of legal interpretation.

Calling someone a pedophile in a professional setting and not taking it back or apologizing = slander.

The Sandusky crack's problem is its obvious maliciousness, which plays a part in defamation suits. That will be a serious problem when it comes to assessing damages.

 

[maxparrish]

Words have meanings.

Indeed they do. And several words, known as a sentence, also has a meaning. So let's start there:

"Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus."

1. Mann was the man behind the "hockey-stick", no one disagrees.
2. The IPCC/Mann graph is, in Steyn's opinion, a "fraudulent climate change "hockey-stick" graph.

Of course, fraudulent has more than one shade of meaning: "dishonest", "trickery", "deception", "pretense", "dishonorable, "unprincipled", "shady", "deceiving" or "cheating".

Seems pretty clear to me Dr. Mann has not committed fraud nor is his work fraudulent.
Academic fraud is a very serious charge. I thinks he' got a pretty solid case.

But it seems to pretty clear to me that you are not conversant in the laws of defamation OR the context of the statement. In order to make a serious claim of libel or slander a plaintiff must show that the defendant did more than express an opinion, he/she must have stated an actual fact about the defendant that is a provable question of fact. It cannot be expressed as a subjective opinion, or as a matter of hyperbole. The defendant must be stating a fact that he/she knows is wrong, and that damages the plaintiff.

For example, in a recent case in Virginia the Supreme Court reviewed the statements of one Dr. accusing another Dr. of letting a patient die. The accused doctor sued.

The statement that "this was a very poor effort” or “you didn’t really try,” or “you gave up on him” were all ruled as subjective, and dependent on the defendant's viewpoint. Characterizing an act as "poor" or "half-hearted" or "giving up" is not (in this case) slander. BUT when the accusing Dr. said to the other Dr. in front of others in the hospital that "you determined from the beginning that he wasn't going to make it and purposefully didn't resuscitate him” THAT is a specific fact that is provable. SO IF the plaintiff can prove that he DID NOT determine from the beginning that the patient was not going to make it, AND prove that he did not intentionally fail to resuscitate him it might be defamation.

Steyn did not state a fact about Mann that was wrong, he expressed a subjective opinion about his Mann's hockey stick graph. What he exactly meant is impossible to determine because it is subjective. Being dishonorable or unprincipled or shady is not a "fact", anymore than calling a model "poor" is a fact - its an opinion. BUT had Steyn said "Mann determined from the beginning that he was going to make up all the data, and intentionally wrote a program to make a chart based on his made up data" THEN THAQT is a matter of provable fact. Its NOT hyperbole nor subjective opinion.

Finally, all these statements were not made in an academic forum, but on a political stage, using hyperbole. It is not libel.

PS - Mann's hockey stick work certainly had elements of fraud. He intentionally left out the R2 verification statistics. Moreover, he modified the PC analysis with non-standard averaging which resulted in a hockey stick shape regardless of the data. And his sample selections were cherry picked, and he fought like hell against any release of his methods. The "trickery" and "unprincipled" work should be, in my opinion, characterized as 'the fraudulent hockey stick".

 

[ZiprHead]

Interesting. How does one commit a fraudulent act and not be a fraud?