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

[maxparrish]

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

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. On the other hand, Paul Krugman says Mann will triumph through the mighty power of Google. Meanwhile, I thank those readers who've purchased our Steyn vs the Stick Free Speech Special and other exclusive trial merchandise from the Steyn store. Mann's suit is protracted and expensive, and the only reason I'm still still standing is because of the support of SteynOnline readers.

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.

 

[arkirk]

maxparrish:

This is pure silliness. I agree it is almost pointless to seek redress against libel in our courts. It is a battle of money against money and keeping the train on track so the big train wreck can happen. I believe you and that link you posted are truly myopic when it comes to global warming.

What do you know of Dr. Mann's work? Would you care critique it here without the language of ad hominem?

 

[maxparrish]

Although I am not sure I should 'derail' into a scientific dispute; yes, I am familiar with his work. I have little doubt that among the body of paleo-climate reconstruction his credibility (while not the worst) ranks in the bottom tier.

 

[arkirk]

Although I am not sure I should 'derail' into a scientific dispute; yes, I am familiar with his work. I have little doubt that among the body of paleo-climate reconstruction his credibility (while not the worst) ranks in the bottom tier.

And you think we should just take your word for it? I don't know what you do for a living, but if you are a scientist, your work and fair review of your work is important to you. We can't just take a right wing rant for the "truth." I do agree our courts are not equipped to deal with differences in scientific understanding. As one who was required in my working life to do a lot of environmental sampling and testing, I know there is always a lot of interpretation of the data and differences arise. However in my case (receiving water testing) the data was very reliable and not subject to revision by people who didn't like the data. Sometimes that person disliking the data was me.

The further a researcher's position he is from the data, the greater the chance he cannot defend his conclusions. 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.

 

[maxparrish]

Although I am not sure I should 'derail' into a scientific dispute; yes, I am familiar with his work. I have little doubt that among the body of paleo-climate reconstruction his credibility (while not the worst) ranks in the bottom tier.

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.

 

[untermensche]

It is Libertarians who believe we should use the courts, not legislation to address grievances?

If a court agrees to hear a case it has by definition met many standards.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

maxparrish:

This is pure silliness. I agree it is almost pointless to seek redress against libel in our courts. It is a battle of money against money and keeping the train on track so the big train wreck can happen. I believe you and that link you posted are truly myopic when it comes to global warming.

What do you know of Dr. Mann's work? Would you care critique it here without the language of ad hominem?

Michael Mann published a study on global warming and found a steep rise over the last century that because of the shape of the graphy became known as the hockey stick. A blog poster bluntly called his work fraudulent in a rather malicious manner, which was repeated by the National Review. He is suing for libel and defamation. Since then, 6 major studies have been performed to check Mann's work and have corroborated his findings. 10 more major studies have also corroborated Mann's work.
The clowns he has sued have tried to derail his suit as frivolous and have failed. Among the scientific community, Mann has great credibility. Among the climate denier crew, he is hated with maliciousness that is hard to fathom.

Google hockey stick, Mann to follow the details. Michael Mann also has a website that covers climate change. Climate change deniers combine the slick ignorance of creationism with the worst virulence of the far right.

He has recently written a book, "The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars; Dispatches from the Front Lines" on the whole subject.

The pure savagery from the deniers is just bizarre.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

Simply false. At least 16 major studies corroborate the Hockey Stick findings. The majority scientific opinion is heavily on the side that climate change is real, dangerous and most of it man made.

 

[untermensche]

The pure savagery from the deniers is just bizarre.

It is that same age old spirit of totalitarianism.

Facts are that which intimidation and force produces.

 

[doubtingt]

They accused Mann of deliberately faking and inventing his findings (that is what "fraudulent" means in reference to science).

That is not an opinion, but an assertion about an issue of fact for which they had and have no evidence. That is greatest defamation of character you can level at a scientist and can severely damage their personal and professional life.

Few cases of libel have had a more legit basis, so it is a perfectly valid use of the Courts, given the existence of libel laws. If you want to argue that all libel and slander laws should not exist, that is another matter. But

The fact that his suit against a media outlet is opposed by a bunch of news corporations who make a living slandering people and deliberately misrepresenting fact for the purpose of ratings is not at all surprising, and if anything supports the legitimacy of his case.
The fact that ACLU opposes Mann's suit is also not surprising since they a generally opposed to slander and libel laws and demand an extremely high bar for them.
The ACLU is being is being dishonest in its argument against Mann's case, tough. They are pretending the calling a scientist "fraudulent" is not claiming that they are deliberately trying to deceive, but is purely an opinion like saying "used invalid methods". The ACLU claim Mann's suit would stifle valid critique of scientific work, but that is wrong. The National Review article could have made all the criticisms they wanted about how Mann's analyses were invalid without claiming he was engaged in deliberate deceit.

In general I oppose libel and slander suits, so I am not that sympathetic to Mann, but the fact is that the National Review made false assertions about Mann to try and defame his character as a method of ad hominem attack, because logical fallacy is the only method they have to get readers to reject the valid science of Climate Change.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Michael Mann is involved in yet another libel suit with one Dr. Tim Ball. Google wikipedia, Tim Ball for particulars.

 

[maxparrish]

They accused Mann of deliberately faking and inventing his findings (that is what "fraudulent" means in reference to science).

That is not an opinion, but an assertion about an issue of fact for which they had and have no evidence. That is greatest defamation of character you can level at a scientist and can severely damage their personal and professional life.

Few cases of libel have had a more legit basis, so it is a perfectly valid use of the Courts, given the existence of libel laws. If you want to argue that all libel and slander laws should not exist, that is another matter. But

The fact that his suit against a media outlet is opposed by a bunch of news corporations who make a living slandering people and deliberately misrepresenting fact for the purpose of ratings is not at all surprising, and if anything supports the legitimacy of his case.
The fact that ACLU opposes Mann's suit is also not surprising since they a generally opposed to slander and libel laws and demand an extremely high bar for them.
The ACLU is being is being dishonest in its argument against Mann's case, tough. They are pretending the calling a scientist "fraudulent" is not claiming that they are deliberately trying to deceive, but is purely an opinion like saying "used invalid methods". The ACLU claim Mann's suit would stifle valid critique of scientific work, but that is wrong. The National Review article could have made all the criticisms they wanted about how Mann's analyses were invalid without claiming he was engaged in deliberate deceit.

In general I oppose libel and slander suits, so I am not that sympathetic to Mann, but the fact is that the National Review made false assertions about Mann to try and defame his character as a method of ad hominem attack, because logical fallacy is the only method they have to get readers to reject the valid science of Climate Change.

Without commenting (yet) on your claim of the ACLU putative "dishonesty" in its argument, be reminded it is not only the ACLU that is piling on to support Steyn. 26 have joined the ACLU brief and numerious other friendly briefs have have been submitted so far. Who supports Mann with friendly briefs? Anyone?

http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/13/aclu-and-national-media-intervene-in-mann-v-steyn-et-al/

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 (the Reporters Committee for Press Freedom, the American Society of News Editors, the Association of American Publishers, the Association of Alternative Newsmedia (The Village Voice et al), NBC Universal, Bloomberg News, the publishers of USA Today, Time, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The Detroit Free Press, The Seattle Times, The Arizona Republic and The Bergen County Record) filed on August 11, 2014.
In addition, Steyn’s own Amicus brief substantially upped the ante on a separate front. It repeatedly and directly accused Mann of submitting “fraudulent” information to the court and commented adversely on “the ease with which Mann lies about things that would not withstand ten minutes of scrutiny in a courtroom”.
Other briefs are by CEI; National Review, the District of Columbia, the Alliance Defending Freedom; the Cato Institute, Goldwater Institute, Reason magazine and David Horowitz’s Individual Rights Foundation;, The Daily Caller, PJ Media, The New Criterion and various Internet publishers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d-national-review-et-al-against-michael-mann/

Of note, the defendants position is being supported by a wide range of media organizations and free speech proponents. The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, for example, filed an amicus brief in conjunction with the ACLU, the Washington Post, and two dozen other media organizations arguing that all of the speech at issue merits First Amendment protection. Another amicus brief was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a group of online publishers, and another — supporting the defendants solely on the procedural question — was filed by the District of Columbia. Copies of these briefs and other amici supporting the defendants may be found here.

Among the 26 organizations joining the ACLU brief:

American Society of News Editors
Association of American Publishers
Center for Investigative Reporting
Gannet Co.
National Press Club
Seattle Times
Time Inc.
NBCUniversal Media
Newspaper Association of America
Television Digital News Association

 

[maxparrish]

They accused Mann of deliberately faking and inventing his findings (that is what "fraudulent" means in reference to science).

That is not an opinion, but an assertion about an issue of fact for which they had and have no evidence. That is greatest defamation of character you can level at a scientist and can severely damage their personal and professional life.

Few cases of libel have had a more legit basis, so it is a perfectly valid use of the Courts, given the existence of libel laws. If you want to argue that all libel and slander laws should not exist, that is another matter....
...The ACLU is being is being dishonest in its argument against Mann's case, tough. They are pretending the calling a scientist "fraudulent" is not claiming that they are deliberately trying to deceive, but is purely an opinion like saying "used invalid methods". The ACLU claim Mann's suit would stifle valid critique of scientific work, but that is wrong.

I think the absurdity of you opinion can be demonstrated in one phrase; I also think Mann's hockey stick is fraudulent nonsense.

So one supposes I am now going to be sued by Mann? Seriously?

The ACLU brief is behalf of an appeal and dismissal of the case under the anti-SLAPP statute. They make a strong if not conclusive argument...

You can't even challenge a publication unless the statement(s) under dispute are actionable. Only if the statements can be interpreted a false assertion of fact that can readily be proven as true or false; in contrast to mere opinion.

In distinguishing assertions of fact from opinions, courts consider the language used, the context of the statement, and the extent to which it is verifiable. For example, they consider whether or not the statement(s) appear in publications known for heated commentary, listed as commentary, if it is a journal or periodical of opinion, if it is a matter of substantial public concern, etc.

As the ACLU wrote:

(they) describe Mann variously as “unscientific” and “the ringmaster of a tree-ring circus” and compare him metaphorically to both Jerry Sandusky and Bernie Madoff. And they criticize the official reviews of his methods, using terms like “scandal,” “whitewash,” “cover up,” and “Climategate.” No one reading these pieces would reasonably understand them to be fact-based news reporting. Indeed, as this court has held, accusations that a plaintiff or his work are untrustworthy are decidedly nonactionable statements of opinion where, as here, the publication’s context signals 15 to the reader that the author is expressing a personal view.

No doubt some of the characterization made reflected “one person’s subjective view of the underlying conduct and were not verifiable a true or false” and "They did not accuse him of fabricating data from thin air". The (prior) court " failed to appreciate that hyperbolic criticisms are a legitimate part of the “rough and tumble” nature of heated debate on important issues of public concern. See Ollman, supra, 242 U.S. App. D.C. at 324, 750 F.2d at 993 (Bork, J., concurring) (column that “openly questioned the measure or method of [professor’s] scholarship” was protected opinion given “the public and constitutional interest in free, and frequently rough, discussion”); Lane, 985 F. Supp. at 148 (accusing plaintiff of “BEING GUILTY OF MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC” with his research fits “comfortably within the boundaries of rough and tumble debate”).

"Because the statements are quintessential opinions about the validity of Mann’s scientific methods and conclusions, they are entitled to full constitutional protection."

What Mann is actual asking is for the courts to prove his views are correct because he claims his work been endorsed by other scientists and government agencies. "But, with respect, that question is properly resolved
by ongoing public and scientific debate, not in a court of law adjudicating a defamation action. Indeed, the prospect of litigation over evolving scientific study has been a chief reason that similar accusations in other cases have been deemed nonactionable:"

From the ACLU brief:

Rather, as the Seventh Circuit eloquently put it, expressing a sentiment
echoed by other courts: “Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science
rather than by the methods of litigation. More papers, more discussion, better data, and more
satisfactory models – not larger awards of damages – mark the path toward superior
understanding of the world around us.” Id. (citation omitted).13

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/...s Committee et all in CEI v. Mann 8-11-14.pdf

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Scientific issues are not settled by libel and character assassination. Which all too often seems to be the way climate deniers operate. Lawsuits is how you halt such unscientific attacks on real scientists who play by the rules.

As for all the news organizations that dislike this suit, gentlemen, control yourselves! Do not carelessly pass on libels! Then you will not be sued as per National Review. I have absolutely no sympathy for those who want to be lazy and careless without possible legal repercussions. Those outfits who think anything goes are wrong. Factually and morally.

Mann gave these fools a chance to withdraw their lies and tell the truth and they did not take that opportunity to admit their wrong doing and apologize. That is not how science is done. But lawsuits are how you deal with libel and lies. For Steyn and National Review, I hope this an expensive, hard lesson. So that the other climate deniers and masters of right wing media can learn fear if not honesty and civility from this.

 

[maxparrish]

Scientific issues are not settled by libel and character assassination. Which all too often seems to be the way climate deniers operate. Lawsuits is how you halt such unscientific attacks on real scientists who play by the rules.

As for all the news organizations that dislike this suit, gentlemen, control yourselves! Do not carelessly pass on libels! Then you will not be sued as per National Review. I have absolutely no sympathy for those who want to be lazy and careless without possible legal repercussions. Those outfits who think anything goes are wrong. Factually and morally.

Mann gave these fools a chance to withdraw their lies and tell the truth and they did not take that opportunity to admit their wrong doing and apologize. That is not how science is done. But lawsuits are how you deal with libel and lies. For Steyn and National Review, I hope this an expensive, hard lesson. So that the other climate deniers and masters of right wing media can learn fear if not honesty and civility from this.

Of course, the noble ends justify a tawdry, disingenuous and cynical means - you know, like what you accuse Rick Perry of. Sad end for the liberal free speech movement, clearly principal has been extinguished in the left long ago.nn

 

[fromderinside]

I recall WFB once asking his left wing guest(s) that "Suppose your only choice was between a democratic system or truly egalitarian-socialist state, but without democracy...which would you chose". There was a time when liberals would say democracy first...not so much these days I suppose.

As your setup implies Socialist need not mean enforced social egalitarianism nor any other enforced constraints on the agreeing social group. Social can be as simple as common access, attributes, acceptance. Deciding what priorities to emphasize, it seems to me, requires common agreement - perhaps no more than majority - for such to realistically be pursued.

We socialists like to agree that social compacts require social, not individual, approaches first. If that gets up your craw that is our intent. Selfishess is a great human problem more than it is a human asset in our view.

I,for one, don't think the concept of ownership should extend beyond temporary custody agreed to by all parties.

With respect to science and opinion the line is where confirmation of data trumps opinion. The whiners seem to be reacting as if their opinions no longer have value. In fact, they don't if the data is more or less universally contradictory to their opinions. We are getting into a realm where scientific truth needs be respected as much as personal truth. One cannot lie about things and expect to get away with it. Such actions have effects and those effects need be addressed.

 

[maxparrish]

I recall WFB once asking his left wing guest(s) that "Suppose your only choice was between a democratic system or truly egalitarian-socialist state, but without democracy...which would you chose". There was a time when liberals would say democracy first...not so much these days I suppose.

As your setup implies Socialist need not mean enforced social egalitarianism nor any other enforced constraints on the agreeing social group. Social can be as simple as common access, attributes, acceptance. Deciding what priorities to emphasize, it seems to me, requires common agreement - perhaps no more than majority - for such to realistically be pursued.

We socialists like to agree that social compacts require social, not individual, approaches first. If that gets up your craw that is our intent. Selfishess is a great human problem more than it is a human asset in our view.

I,for one, don't think the concept of ownership should extend beyond temporary custody agreed to by all parties.

With respect to science and opinion the line is where confirmation of data trumps opinion. The whiners seem to be reacting as if their opinions no longer have value. In fact, they don't if the data is more or less universally contradictory to their opinions. We are getting into a realm where scientific truth needs be respected as much as personal truth. One cannot lie about things and expect to get away with it. Such actions have effects and those effects need be addressed.

I deleted that paragraph because, upon further consideration, I realized that I would likely get a protest over the definition of socialism followed by red herring and strawman dismissals of bourgeois democracy as "not real democracy". BUT as you are replying to it, I will entertain a sampling...

For example: "We socialists like to agree that social compacts require social, not individual, approaches first. If that gets up your craw that is our intent. Selfishess is a great human problem more than it is a human asset in our view."

Your response is an archetype, having the childish characteristics of most left-wing "dialog". Evasive and dancing around the direct question, decorated in vague phrasing like "social approaches first", pride in verbal and personal aggression, and red herring criticism about selfishness. What it is not is an answer to the question; an honest and plain statement of your priority.

If you had to make a choice between a democratic system (with the usual rights such as free speech, property, etc.) OR an egalitarian socialist society that had redistribution and equality, but without a democratic government or liberty rights which would you choose? Which one?

 

[untermensche]

If you had to make a choice between a democratic system (with the usual rights such as free speech, property, etc.) OR an egalitarian socialist society that had redistribution and equality, but without a democratic government or liberty rights which would you choose? Which one?

Nobody chooses anything, 99% of humanity sits on it's ass and endures the system it was born in.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Scientific issues are not settled by libel and character assassination. Which all too often seems to be the way climate deniers operate. Lawsuits is how you halt such unscientific attacks on real scientists who play by the rules.

As for all the news organizations that dislike this suit, gentlemen, control yourselves! Do not carelessly pass on libels! Then you will not be sued as per National Review. I have absolutely no sympathy for those who want to be lazy and careless without possible legal repercussions. Those outfits who think anything goes are wrong. Factually and morally.

Mann gave these fools a chance to withdraw their lies and tell the truth and they did not take that opportunity to admit their wrong doing and apologize. That is not how science is done. But lawsuits are how you deal with libel and lies. For Steyn and National Review, I hope this an expensive, hard lesson. So that the other climate deniers and masters of right wing media can learn fear if not honesty and civility from this.

Of course, the noble ends justify a tawdry, disingenuous and cynical means - you know, like what you accuse Rick Perry of. Sad end for the liberal free speech movement, clearly principal has been extinguished in the left long ago.nn

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?

 

[maxparrish]

If you had to make a choice between a democratic system (with the usual rights such as free speech, property, etc.) OR an egalitarian socialist society that had redistribution and equality, but without a democratic government or liberty rights which would you choose? Which one?

Nobody chooses anything, 99% of humanity sits on it's ass and endures the system it was born in.

Perhaps if I spell it slower: E...V...A...S...I...O...N !