Prominent climate scientist Michael Mann is suing writer and broadcaster Mark Steyn alleging an article by Steyn defamed him and his research. Mann is perhaps best known for producing the Hockey Stick graph alleging that global temperatures were basically stable for 1500 years until human industrial activity led to an ongoing spike in temperatures. Steyn claims the graph is fraudulent. Climate Change on Trail is a verbatim podcast using re-enactments based on trial transcripts. Tune in every day to hear the clashes, the lies, and the truth.
I started with Episode 3, and that one is especially good, with reenactments of the opening statements (and Steyn is acting as his own lawyer, so his unique style is on display).
Steyn described Mann as a “vicious blowhard”.... who discriminates against, harasses, and bullies anybody who disagrees with him.” He said Mann’s Hockey Stick graph was a fraud and Mann himself was a fraud. Mann falsely claimed on numerous occasions to have won a Nobel Prize....
Posts
46 comments:
But a DC jury. Lawless.
Yes, good stuff. Would have loved to hear Steyn himself.
Super thumbs up to Ann and Meade for promoting this podcast.
I’m a long time Mark Steyn fan. Michael E. Mann is an odious POS. This is coming out quite clearly in the trial’s testimonies.
Steyn is a Canadian, and probably knows a little something about "old time hockey."
Steyn described Mann as a “vicious blowhard”.... who discriminates against, harasses, and bullies anybody who disagrees with him.” He said Mann’s Hockey Stick graph was a fraud and Mann himself was a fraud.
"They don't call me Dr. Hook for nuthin'."
This sounds like a clear first amendment case but it isn’t. The problem is the Gerry Sandusky and Penn State cover up analogies.
I agree that Mann is a scientific fraud and the case is designed to shut down debate and criticism but the child molester language borders on libel per se. But “Mann is a child molester” was never written. Can its use in an analogy be actionable? There’s the reason the case hasn’t been booted on first amendment grounds years ago.
And I believe this is being tried before a judge rather than a jury. Although with DC judges I don’t know that you can expect any fairer of an outcome.
Nothing much Steyn says about Mann is untrue. . . .
I have only unsure opinions about climate change, health care policy, and the economy. So I don't comment on them.
I guess that makes me a prime candidate for this podcast, to learn. But I've lost faith in our ability to parse the science, even though this is probably one of the best ways to frame the debate.
* Side note, what does it say that never in history has informed debate among anyone, anywhere been more possible, yet less common?
Self-righteous climate change frauds need to be placed in the sunlight. for disinfectant purposes.
Speech in not free in left-wing Canada.
"Steyn described Mann as a “vicious blowhard”.... who discriminates against, harasses, and bullies anybody who disagrees with him.”"
He left out 'bad scientist'. I recommend the book 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' by A.W. Montford. It's a bit dated now, but does a good job of dismantling Mann's research.
"the blog post Mann is complaining about was on Rand Simberg's blog for one week over 12 years ago."
and there isn't any evidence that anyone saw it.
LOL.
Speech crime!
If the Feds stop awarding grants to climate change alarmists (and the NGOs and Non Profits that support them). This insanity would wind-down pretty quickly.
I was on a crowded train from Grindelwald down to Interlaken on an unusually warm Oct afternoon, recently, and couldn't help noticing an individual (not Swiss) go on-and-on to a couple he was seated with about, "How can people be in denial about climate change?".
It was difficult but I held my tounge. Eventually, the talker noted my interest and asked, "What, you disagree?". I replied, "Change is inevitable. Nature adjusts. Be a shame if the Lauterbrunnen Valley was still under a thousand feet of ice." He scoffed but did not reply.
I have it on another browser tab but haven’t listened yet. I’ve been reading Rand Simberg about as long as Ann Althouse, and I know this trial has been delayed a long time.
there isn't any evidence that anyone saw it.
I saw it, but what is written and what I read certainly did not suggest to me what Mann claims it did. I do think Mann molested data and find it a stretch that such is construed to molesting children, although Penn State ignored both.
Defamation. The legal dumbing down of telling the truth. Another example just a couple of days ago against Trump.
I promote the Merchants of Venice solution.
Claiming that the climate isn't changing, that the models are incongruous with observation, is grounds for a defamation suit.
Mann was quoted in This article complaining that social media companies are not censoring more of their users. The true believers in print media seek to control the narrative, stifle dissent, and knee cap their competition -- and go the Manns of the world for quotes.
If I remember right, Steyn was essentially victimized by his co-defendant being able to take interlocutory appeal (lost) from denial of motion to dismiss, when Steyn wanted to just proceed to trial.
Ninth Circuit federal court just decided to review that right to immediate appeal from denial of dismissal motion en banc. Of course the side that sought review of that issue was the side that had already lost its immediate appeal. Delay, delay, delay.
So the podcast title is misleading. Climate change is not on trial. One dude who made comments about what another dude said about climate change is on trial.
Without a morally corrupted legal profession and judiciary, this lawsuit would have been over long ago.
When left wingers are sued for defamation, motions to dismiss or summary judgments are granted.
That said, Steyn has apparently decided to try to make lemonade from the lemons handed out. He is an eccentric. Mann is evil.
How long did it take to get to trial? 10 years? It's been going on forever .
I listened to Steyn's opening remarks. No punches pulled.
But why the fuck is every trial of import in DC?
Judges and juries there vote 95% dem and are all in on 'Gaia is burning.'
I'm really tired of our corrupt legal system.
Yes, I get it, jurisdiction, where the suits are brought, etc.
But it stinks.
the case should have been dismissed a long time ago.
Has Mann ever posted where he got his data?
" BarrySanders20 said...
So the podcast title is misleading. Climate change is not on trial. One dude who made comments about what another dude said about climate change is on trial."
True, but sometime in the trial Mann is going to have to prove to the satisfaction of the judge that he is not in fact a liar and a fraud. If he cannot prove his data then Styen is right. Mann is a liar and a fraud.
The case for catestophic climate change has been going on for the last 18 years and hasn't produced the dire results we've been assured were coming. This even after we've introduced technologies to mitigate climate ghange which are in fact more deleterious to the climate than before they were introduced.
The climate change agenda is not about saving the Earth. As we see with wind turbines that produce a negligible amount of energy while slaughtering protected species by the thousands every year. Climate change is merely an excuse for the ruling trash to take things from the proles while leaving elite privilege intact.
"But “Mann is a child molester” was never written. Can its use in an analogy be actionable? There’s the reason the case hasn’t been booted on first amendment grounds years ago."
The analogy was that both Jerry Sandusky and Michael Mann had been "exonerated" by "investigations" run by Penn State. Which is certainly true.
"Mann falsely claimed on numerous occasions to have won a Nobel Prize...."
In Mann's defense, Al Gore's utterly misleading movie "An Inconvenient Truth" won a toy Nobel Prize. I think it was a "Peace Prize". Some garbage like that. Anyway, Mann had some tenuous connection to that movie, and his claim was based upon that. He had won a piece of a peace prize.
OK, so Mann is indefensible.
"And I believe this is being tried before a judge rather than a jury."
No. The first day was devoted to jury selection.
Mann never posted his data although the math errors and splicing of data from two different sources are well documented. Without the data the results of Mann's research are no better than Adam Schiff's proof of Trump-Russia collusion.
Mann was part of a UN IPCC group of over 5000 contributors that got a Nobel. The president of the Nobel committee put in writing that Mann is not, himself, a recipient
Mann has pretty determinedly kept his arguments in the court of public opinion. If he were to behave like a scientist and actually lay out his methodology and his data for his scientist peers to evaluate, he would likely lose all arguments and even worse, the funding & prestige gravy train he clearly loves. This is not the first time he has used every dirty-fighting trick in the books to cause his detractors to suffer in court. That, he is expert at.
Mann's lawyer called Steyn to the witness box to cross examine him on claims made during opening statements... Instead of asking about the publications from 12 years ago at issue. "Were you aware Dr Mann has a Nobel certificate from the IPCC ..."?
There's a 6 member jury.
The podcast is great if one-sided.
@ElliotA. The investigation Penn State was asked to conduct related to whether or not Mann asked colleagues to delete data and email subject to federal Freedom of Information Act requests. The investigation did not ask those colleagues.
Steyn has sufferend multiple heart attacks as this court case drags to 12 plus years. He has been hounded from Canada to the U.S. and is being hounded out of here too. It is a disgrace.
We are literally killing one of the smartest and best-natured people of his generation with lawfare. As he is being persecuted, he maintains his bemused cultural commentary from everything from 40's music to modern plays. How does he do it?
Thank you, Althouse, for publicizing this. Subscribe to his blog. Please. He actually nees the money.
For those who read faster than they listen and those who want all of a claim and not excerpts:
https://www.steynonline.com/14039/opening-statement
Move to Tennessee. Countersue Mann here.
2-1/2 episodes in and loving it.
Thank you for this, Ann.
Currently listening to the re-enactment of Mark steyn's opening statement.
John Henry
Mann lost a similar suit in British Columbia Canada. Under the rules of court in that jurisdiction he was laible for attorney's fees and costs. He skipped leaving his aggrieved defendant holding the bag. Steyn has written about his despicable behavior and posted the judgment of that court.
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/9740.pdf
I have been a Mark Steyn fan since long before www.steynonline.com was launched (gathering content from the Western Standard, the Daily Telegraph, the London Spectator . . .), and have of course been following this case over all of its 12 years (so far).
The last major wrinkle was a couple of weeks back, when the trial was slated to begin, but at the very last moment (i.e., after Steyn got on the plane to fly to D.C., but before it landed), the judge called it off, pleading illness. So he's out another $X for the round trip. This time he's actually gotten through voir dire and opening statements, so it's gotten further than ever before. But Mann has a history of filing suits and then needlessly delaying them. Why not, after all? Sitting on his ass costs him nothing.
BTW, I don't think Steyn's was a post to Rand Simberg's blog. IIRC, both defendants' were posts to "The Corner" at National Review Online. Simberg's was a little more, um, suggestive than Steyn's, but both were comparing, not Mann to Sandusky, but Penn's treatment of one to its treatment of the other. Steyn is not accused of saying that Mann "molested the data" (that was Simberg), but he did call the "hockey stick" graph "fraudulent," and that's what the case is about so far as he is concerned. And since he's gone on calling it fraudulent for the past twelve years, there is no contest on that point. But the number of climate scientists who agree with him is large enough that Steyn's book A Disgrace to the Profession, collecting their comments and published many years ago, is promisingly labeled "Vol. 1." Take a look at it sometime; it's devastating.
Any reasons provided for why this lawsuit sat and sat and sat and sat for so many years?
Yes - I have been listening- it is great!
I used to be a huge Mark Steyn fan and I read his blog regularly. Although I support his criticism of the Hockey Stick graph, I worry that his switch from pure conservatism to enthusiasm for Limbaugh's changeover from political conservative to Trumpism leaves me with no place to go. I offer this example of Mark Steyn - the Trump yes-man.
MARK STEYN (HOST): Well, to go back to where we came in at the top of the hour, Douglas, if they don't like people wandering into the United States Capitol and putting their impertinent feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk, the best solution to that is a culture of free speech.
If you tell people you can't have a Twitter account, you can't have a Facebook account, well, what else is there to do but actually walk into the Capitol and go all insurrectional? If you can't talk about it, you can only act.
I have now caught up on the podcast, and I find it exceptionally entertaining. The podcasters are Irish, and seem to see
I know zip about the judge and the jury, so my capacity to prect is zero. things in the legally naive way of the typical juror. So their insights are raw. The actors they've hired to read trial excepts are very good.
This jury is getting a wonderful trial. Steyn's opening, and his performace when grilled by Mann, were articulate and credible. Let's watch this play out.
Gadfly, you don't even use your real name here. You don't defend people who are literally persecuted by our government abetted by big tech. I can name half a dozen people who lost their platforms and income. None were threatening violence.
There comes a time when some people stand up and others slink out the back door. You are a slinker.
For those seeking more on this trial, Heartland.org has a podcast “Climate Trial of the Century” with a roundtable of people that have been following this for awhile.
gadfly said...
You're attacking the man, not the facts. This isn't about Trump or Limbaugh. This is about how Mann got his data. Is his data fraudulent? Is climate change anthropomorphic. I contend that it isn't. If it were we'd be wearing shorts right now,(sorry Ann), and there'd be palm trees on Michigan Avenue.
Post a Comment