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

[maxparrish]

The ends do not justify the means. Which is why Mann has sued Steyn, National Review and Tim Ball. Destroying a person with libels is not acceptable. Perry simply was too stupid to understand he was stepping over the line. You do not settle scientific issues with defamation and false claims. Why is that so hard to understand?

You do not settle scientific issues with law suits attempting to chill free speech, assuming you have respect for the first amendment. Why is that so hard for to understand?

 

[untermensche]

You do not settle scientific issues with law suits attempting to chill free speech, assuming you have respect for the first amendment. Why is that so hard for to understand?

The suit is an attempt to chill libelous speech.

Free speech does not mean every kind of speech is allowed. Using lies to discredit research that shows the entire planet is in danger is far more dangerous than yelling fire in a movie theater.

 

[maxparrish]

As I demonstrated earlier, it was not libelous under the law. It was opinion (and directed at a public figure).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As I demonstrated earlier, it was not libelous under the law. It was opinion (and directed at a public figure).

It most certainly is libellous. The defendents have now, twice tried to play that card with the judges involved with this case and been rebuffed. Twice. Mann gave them a chance to withdraw their charges and apologize and they refused to do so. The problem is not their opinion, but their false statement of fact. You don't understand the difference? These schnooks didn't either, but they are going to learn an expensive lesson in that difference.
Again, short and sweet making a claim of fact is different from mere opinion. They made a claim that was not true, and given a chance to retract these claims refused to. They earned this libel trial fair and square.

In Mann's suit against Dr. Tim Ball, Ball claimed his libel was meant as "a joke". That didn't fly with the judge in that case either. Ball is also being sued by Dr. Andrew Weaver. For libel. Statements of fact that are in actuality false get you sued. That is how libel suits work in the real world.

 

[maxparrish]

As I demonstrated earlier, it was not libelous under the law. It was opinion (and directed at a public figure).

It most certainly is libellous. The defendants have now, twice tried to play that card with the judges involved with this case and been rebuffed. Twice. Mann gave them a chance to withdraw their charges and apologize and they refused to do so. The problem is not their opinion, but their false statement of fact. You don't understand the difference?

Apparently I do understand the difference between a full trial and a filing to dismiss it - two judges did not determine that the statements were libelous but did refuse to dismiss the case under the anti-SLAPP statute.

And I understand that the first judge, Combs Geene, conducted a procedural fiasco, issued an error ridden opinion using the wrong legal criteria, repeatedly confused the clients, and terminated it in a train wreck of confusion - before passing it to another judge as "too complex" for her to handle.

The new judge basically started over - rehearing and reconsidering the request for dismissal and the reply. While he did not accept all of Mann's legal arguments and examples, but he did think Mann was "likely" to prevail so their should be a full trial. He was badly and demonstrably wrong (see ACLU brief, among many others).

BUT it is now in appeal AND the appeals court is not only considering whether or not an Anti-Slapp judgement can be appealed, it has decided to actually rehear the merits of the Anti-Slapp filing. Presumably they anticipate that they will rule that it may be appealed, and wish to determine for themselves the merits.

So how many bites more at the apple? If the defendants win, it is likely over. If they lose the anti-slapp it goes to trial. If they lose again, then it goes through an appeals process that will likely end up in the Supreme Court. And then Mann will get "slapped" in another sense, and free speech will be protected.

Interestingly Steyn does NOT want the case dismissed. He wishes to go to trial and, being a showman, I expect a great 'scopes monkey trial'. If so, I fully expect him to win. In fact, I expect him to tear Mann apart with Mann's claims of having won a noble prize, and his own record of hyperbolic rhetoric and false characterizations.

These schnooks didn't either, but they are going to learn an expensive lesson in that difference.

I believe the publications-think tank carry insurance for just this sort legal harassment.

Again, short and sweet making a claim of fact is different from mere opinion. They made a claim that was not true, and given a chance to retract these claims refused to. They earned this libel trial fair and square.

In Mann's suit against Dr. Tim Ball, Ball claimed his libel was meant as "a joke". That didn't fly with the judge in that case either. Ball is also being sued by Dr. Andrew Weaver. For libel. Statements of fact that are in actuality false get you sued. That is how libel suits work in the real world.

Given the claims I have read they should not retract them. They are essentially true. However, would you mind quoting what they supposedly wrote or said?

 

[arkirk]

Do you know if Dr. Mann was discredited by other climate scientists? The ACLU, the L.A. Times, NBC, and the Washington Post are not credible scientific bodies. Depending on the political and commercial leanings of an institution, it is possible to see critiques that have no credibility at all but rather ideologically based critiques. That is what I suspect is happening in this court case.

To the contrary, although not recently, the paleo-climate global warming community has either praised or defended Mann. However, any objectively minded person can read the controversy surrounding the hockey stick and note he is a dissembling, ego maniacal, duffis. McIntyre at climate audit (among others) have demonstrated his misdoings, and his and other accounts are convincing.

He, like most global warmers in the proxy reconstitution business are little more than alchemists funded (as usual) through lots of grants.

You wouldn't be prejudiced against global warming would you? I think it is possible you have something in your life that depends on global warming denial and you are just protecting your interest. I have never heard of this "proxy reconstitution business" you refer to. Is this something we should be following? Do you actually think he is warming the globe? You call him a "global warmer." It appears that Trans-Canada and Exxon and the Russians and you and me are the global warmers. Dr. Mann is apparently just trying to document it...and is being libeled and otherwise smeared to keep the issue politically submerged just a bit longer for just a bit more petrochemical profits.

 

[maxparrish]

To the contrary, although not recently, the paleo-climate global warming community has either praised or defended Mann. However, any objectively minded person can read the controversy surrounding the hockey stick and note he is a dissembling, ego maniacal, duffis. McIntyre at climate audit (among others) have demonstrated his misdoings, and his and other accounts are convincing.

He, like most global warmers in the proxy reconstitution business are little more than alchemists funded (as usual) through lots of grants.

You wouldn't be prejudiced against global warming would you? I think it is possible you have something in your life that depends on global warming denial and you are just protecting your interest.

I believe global warming is real, and that it is primarily caused by human activity. Moving on...

I have never heard of this "proxy reconstitution business" you refer to. Is this something we should be following? Do you actually think he is warming the globe? You call him a "global warmer." It appears that Trans-Canada and Exxon and the Russians and you and me are the global warmers. Dr. Mann is apparently just trying to document it...and is being libeled and otherwise smeared to keep the issue politically submerged just a bit longer for just a bit more petrochemical profits.

"Proxy reconstruction" is the use of historic proxy's for temperatures (e.g. tree rings, ice cores, etc.) to simulate average temperatures before recorded instruments. The hockey stick is Mann's graph, used by Al Gore in his movie, "proving" the earth has never been warmer in the last 1000 years. It basically made the medieval warming period a non-event. It turns out that using Mann's statistical methods you can also get a hockey stick from random data from white noise.

 

[arkirk]

As I demonstrated earlier, it was not libelous under the law. It was opinion (and directed at a public figure).

You may think parroting the highlighted material should be enough, but it is not. Debate over climate change should center on technical information that really is not open to opinion...unless one questions the sampling techniques etc. and the method used to interpret the data. That is fair. Merely calling somebody a "global warmer" doesn't cut it. When the hard numbers are right there in your face, equating the person who did the calculation with chicken little is at least uncalled for and in some cases grounds for libel. We have learned over time that lying can be quite easy and denying scientifically observed reality is a way of life for climate change deniers...and profitable too.

 

[arkirk]

You wouldn't be prejudiced against global warming would you? I think it is possible you have something in your life that depends on global warming denial and you are just protecting your interest.

I believe global warming is real, and that it is primarily caused by human activity. Moving on...

I have never heard of this "proxy reconstitution business" you refer to. Is this something we should be following? Do you actually think he is warming the globe? You call him a "global warmer." It appears that Trans-Canada and Exxon and the Russians and you and me are the global warmers. Dr. Mann is apparently just trying to document it...and is being libeled and otherwise smeared to keep the issue politically submerged just a bit longer for just a bit more petrochemical profits.

"Proxy reconstruction" is the use of historic proxy's for temperatures (e.g. tree rings, ice cores, etc.) to simulate average temperatures before recorded instruments. The hockey stick is Mann's graph, used by Al Gore in his movie, "proving" the earth has never been warmer in the last 1000 years. It basically made the medieval warming period a non-event. It turns out that using Mann's statistical methods you can also get a hockey stick from random data from white noise.

It is not a business, It is a method of managing data. The fact remains this does show a hockey stick. Not all white noise data will produce a hockey stick. I am sure Dr. Mann's papers clearly defined the parameters deemed valid for the work and did not misrepresent or skew the results by selective methodology.

 

[RavenSky]

There were significant developments in the case last week. The ACLU and almost every major media organization came out, decisively, against Michael E Mann because they recognize the menace he poses to freedom of expression were he to prevail.

How does the ACLU filing multiple amicus briefs on both sides addressing very narrow specific legal questions in this case equal the ACLU coming "out, decisively, against Michael E Mann because they recognize the menace he poses to freedom of expression..."

It doesn't . Regardless what anyone thinks about climate science, or about the merits of Mann's cases, the article's quoted in the OP are pure self-serving bullshit by one of the defendants engaging further in what he is accused of in an effort to raise money for his legal fees.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

We just finished up a public libel suit with Jesse Ventura victorious. He is even a public figure. I would not call Mann a public figure. He may have become one because of the slander on him and his work, but this does not make those that spread lies about him immune to lawsuits.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There were significant developments in the case last week. The ACLU and almost every major media organization came out, decisively, against Michael E Mann because they recognize the menace he poses to freedom of expression were he to prevail.

How does the ACLU filing multiple amicus briefs on both sides addressing very narrow specific legal questions in this case equal the ACLU coming "out, decisively, against Michael E Mann because they recognize the menace he poses to freedom of expression..."It doesn't . Regardless what anyone thinks about climate science, or about the merits of Mann's cases, the article's quoted in the OP are pure self-serving bullshit by one of the defendants engaging further in what he is accused of in an effort to raise money for his legal fees.

Lawyers and judges are very well aware of the games and ploys of scalliwags to avoid the consequences of their less than acceptable actions. The flurry of such here in this case is not flying so far. Libel is not mere opinion, nor is this a SLAPP suit, and on and on. Mann stood accused of fraud by right winged fools, and was demonstrated by six studies to having produced sound science and to have not done anything fraudulent. These defendents refused to look at the evidence despite Mann's demands they retract their false claims.Part of such suits can very well turn on lack of due diligence and refusing to inform one's self on the facts, easily and readily available facts. Repeating debunked claims of fraud despite evidence these are false claims is not a good idea.There has been some speculation that a big loss in this case may well financially sink National Review.The stakes are high. The desperate dodging, attempts to obfusticate, confuse and derail this case will be many and this will guarantee a long court case.

 

[maxparrish]

I believe global warming is real, and that it is primarily caused by human activity. Moving on...

I have never heard of this "proxy reconstitution business" you refer to. Is this something we should be following? Do you actually think he is warming the globe? You call him a "global warmer." It appears that Trans-Canada and Exxon and the Russians and you and me are the global warmers. Dr. Mann is apparently just trying to document it...and is being libeled and otherwise smeared to keep the issue politically submerged just a bit longer for just a bit more petrochemical profits.

"Proxy reconstruction" is the use of historic proxy's for temperatures (e.g. tree rings, ice cores, etc.) to simulate average temperatures before recorded instruments. The hockey stick is Mann's graph, used by Al Gore in his movie, "proving" the earth has never been warmer in the last 1000 years. It basically made the medieval warming period a non-event. It turns out that using Mann's statistical methods you can also get a hockey stick from random data from white noise.

It is not a business, It is a method of managing data. The fact remains this does show a hockey stick. Not all white noise data will produce a hockey stick. I am sure Dr. Mann's papers clearly defined the parameters deemed valid for the work and did not misrepresent or skew the results by selective methodology.

Okay, let's make a correction without a difference, turns out it will produce a hockey stick shape with random RED noise.

We also observed that they had modified the principal components calculation so that it intentionally or unintentionally
mined for hockey stick shaped series. It was so powerful in this respect that I could even
produce a HS from random red noise.

This last observation has received much publicity. However, we did not and do not argue
that this is the only way that a HS series can be obtained from red noise: there is the old
fashioned method - manually select series with a hockey stick shape and then average.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf

Von Storch, Burger and Chumash, and McIntyre have all published peer reviewed papers discrediting Mann's original work.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You do know the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a guest lectureship at a Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series? I'm not sure what mechanical engineers know about climate change or how the fields are related, maybe someone can enlighten me?

Also one of the journals his articles are in has an explicitly stated bias toward climate change denial.

 

[maxparrish]

You do know the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a guest lectureship at a Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series? I'm not sure what mechanical engineers know about climate change or how the fields are related, maybe someone can enlighten me?

I sure do. Hence, in spite of your too obvious straw man, you were unable to find where I claimed that his presentation was a peer-reviewed paper. And you do know that Von Storch, Burger and Chumash, and McIntyre have all published peer reviewed papers discrediting Mann's original work, right?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You do know the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a guest lectureship at a Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series? I'm not sure what mechanical engineers know about climate change or how the fields are related, maybe someone can enlighten me?

I sure do. Hence, in spite of your too obvious straw man, you were unable to find where I claimed that his presentation was a peer-reviewed paper. And you do know that Von Storch, Burger and Chumash, and McIntyre have all published peer reviewed papers discrediting Mann's original work, right?

I am reviewing them now, but still really wonder what mechanical engineering has to do with climate change and why a scientific journal is claiming a political bias. It would be nice if you can link to the papers you are referring to.

 

[ksen]

I sure do. Hence, in spite of your too obvious straw man, you were unable to find where I claimed that his presentation was a peer-reviewed paper. And you do know that Von Storch, Burger and Chumash, and McIntyre have all published peer reviewed papers discrediting Mann's original work, right?

I am reviewing them now, but still really wonder what mechanical engineering has to do with climate change and why a scientific journal is claiming a political bias. It would be nice if you can link to the papers you are referring to.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Von Storch, Burger and Chumash didn't call Michael Mann "Doctor Fraudpants" in their peer-reviewed papers.

 

[maxparrish]

How does the ACLU filing multiple amicus briefs on both sides addressing very narrow specific legal questions in this case equal the ACLU coming "out, decisively, against Michael E Mann because they recognize the menace he poses to freedom of expression..."It doesn't . Regardless what anyone thinks about climate science, or about the merits of Mann's cases, the article's quoted in the OP are pure self-serving bullshit by one of the defendants engaging further in what he is accused of in an effort to raise money for his legal fees.

Where did you find that the ACLU filed multiple amicus briefs 'on both sides', not from the op sources? The ACLU filed on behalf of many groups who support the defendants. Have you even bothered to read the brief (or my summary?) ...I fear the question is rhetorical.

National Review Quoting the ACLU of Washington DC:

Media amici have an interest in ensuring anti-SLAPP statutes remain effective tools in protecting free speech. While all citizens who choose to speak out on public affairs benefit from anti-SLAPP statutes, which aim to deter the use of litigation to silence speech, as regular speakers news organizations have an especially strong interest in ensuring that these statutes provide meaningful relief. It is news organizations that choose every day to venture into the thick of public controversy to make sure citizens are fully informed about their world. This engagement with important issues makes the news media more liable to be drawn into court, particularly when a controversial figure decides to use litigation as a weapon to counter thorough reporting or challenging commentary.

The American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital is the Washington, D.C., affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to protecting and expanding the civil liberties of all Americans, particularly their right to freedom of speech. The ACLU of the Nation’s Capital played a leading role in supporting passage of the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act and, having represented defendants in several SLAPP suits, is familiar with the intimidating effect such lawsuits can have on http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...view-legal-update-amici-weigh-jack-fowlerfree speech.

Lawyers and judges are very well aware of the games and ploys of scalliwags to avoid the consequences of their less than acceptable actions. The flurry of such here in this case is not flying so far. Libel is not mere opinion, nor is this a SLAPP suit, and on and on. Mann stood accused of fraud by right winged fools, and was demonstrated by six studies to having produced sound science and to have not done anything fraudulent. These defendents refused to look at the evidence despite Mann's demands they retract their false claims.Part of such suits can very well turn on lack of due diligence and refusing to inform one's self on the facts, easily and readily available facts. Repeating debunked claims of fraud despite evidence these are false claims is not a good idea.There has been some speculation that a big loss in this case may well financially sink National Review.The stakes are high. The desperate dodging, attempts to obfusticate, confuse and derail this case will be many and this will guarantee a long court case.

So why don't you present the evidence you claim validates Mann's nonsense? What are these 'readily available facts' to be found? As usual gave us a 'big hat' and no cattle in your endless ranting.

Where are your cites and evidence CC?

 

[arkirk]

You do know the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a guest lectureship at a Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series? I'm not sure what mechanical engineers know about climate change or how the fields are related, maybe someone can enlighten me?

Also one of the journals his articles are in has an explicitly stated bias toward climate change denial.

I skimmed the PDF MAX posted and found what I expected to find...a lot of data mining and selective data publishing on the part of the deniers. Court on this will be mildly interesting. The hockey stick was very much involved in triggering a lot of newer more accurate forms of monitoring. The proxy modeling was simply the best information Mann had at the time he did his work. You cannot expect proxy modeling to be entirely accurate. The fact is that later modeling of actual measurements taken by NOAA and NASA probes are supporting the portion of the hockey stick in which we find ourselves today. We are grossly increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere and our climate is being modified by this addition. That is clear.

 

[maxparrish]

I sure do. Hence, in spite of your too obvious straw man, you were unable to find where I claimed that his presentation was a peer-reviewed paper. And you do know that Von Storch, Burger and Chumash, and McIntyre have all published peer reviewed papers discrediting Mann's original work, right?

I am reviewing them now, but still really wonder what mechanical engineering has to do with climate change and why a scientific journal is claiming a political bias. It would be nice if you can link to the papers you are referring to.

There is nothing to "wonder". McIntyre was invited by a Ohio State entity to make a presentation on his work. He provided an overview that helps the unfamiliar understand why folks like Steyn and National Review believes he is a mountebank.