Althouse: Let's listen to Episode 7 of "Climate Change on Trial"

January 26, 2024

Let's listen to Episode 7 of "Climate Change on Trial" — "Mann & Ann."

26 comments:

Dave Begley said...: I've been listening!; 1/26/24, 10:53 AM
Dave Begley said...: The problem here is a DC jury.; 1/26/24, 10:56 AM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/26/24, 10:58 AM
mezzrow said...: I'm enjoying this like my cat enjoys her fresh bowl of Fancy Feast. She purrs when she eats. I'd purr if I could.; 1/26/24, 11:52 AM
Jamie said...: I'm not to this episode yet! I've only listened through Steyn's testimony, which I don't know how to evaluate - on the one hand, he and Simburg have the better argument, but on the other, "his" voice (since the podcast features actors reading the court transcripts) comes across pretty much the way it really does, as Britty-condescending, which may not play that well with a DC jury.

I do wish everyone would stop confusing Penn State and Penn. One of the strongest pieces of evidence that Mann suffered zero reputational damage, ISTM, is that he went from teaching at Penn State - a "good" school - to teaching at Penn - an ivy.; 1/26/24, 11:53 AM
Rusty said...: Mann is laying the blame for his data on others. Which leads me to believe that the data wasn't vetted or was delivered as altered.
Oh. And Styne isn't saying that Mann was a pedophile. He's saying that Mann got the same preferential treatment as Sandusky. Who happened to be a pedophile. Big difference.
It sounds like Mann is deseminating. I would like to hear the rest of the testimony.; 1/26/24, 12:16 PM
Leland said...: I'm listening, but 2 episodes behind.

Still trying to understand plaintiff's counsels strategy. Why make a big deal about a Certificate of Appreciation from the IPCC, when the argument is about winning the Nobel Prize. IPCC is not the Nobel committee. And why bring on a witness talking about all the Who's Who and participation in global hob nobs when you are trying to prove defamation. Just now in my listening, Mann is testifying about getting "mean looks", yet the previous witness for the Plaintiff talked about all his success and positive recognition.

Now they are talking about Victoria Weatherford and her appearance. She is impressive. Mainly, she seems the only person trying a defamation case.; 1/26/24, 12:22 PM
John henry said...: Currently about halfway through Ep 7. Enjoying the whole series. I especially like listening to Ann and Phelim's voices.

I also love the actor doing Mark Steyn. He does not sound exactly like Steyn but has a wonderful voice and phrasing. I love the way he keeps calling the judge "My Lord"

As I said the other day, I wish someone would do this, voice actors from transcript, for the various Trump trials.

I also tracked down Ann & Phelim's website and donated $25. https://unreportedstorysociety.com/

I found that they do a regular podcast and have subscribed to it but have not listened to it yet. The Ann & Phelim Scoop.

John Henry; 1/26/24, 12:35 PM
John henry said...: I had been under the impression that Mark Steyn is a naturalized US citizen and that he has lived in New Hampshire for the past 30-40 years.

Does anyone know if this is correct? Wikipedia was a bit vague on it.

The reason I ask is because I think of him as mostly American. Yet in the trial he keeps referring to himself as Canadian, a "subject of his royal canadian majesty", a bit vague on US law and customs (though he has represented himself a bunch of US courts) and so on.

John Henry; 1/26/24, 12:41 PM
John henry said...: One of the most amazing things about this case so far is what came out yesterday.

Mann testified that to date, 12 years of top dollar lawyering and counting, he has not paid a penny in legal fees nor does he expect to pay a penny in legal fees.

I am hoping that Steyn will ask at some point just who is paying the perhaps millions in legal fees.

It does not sound like a contingency type deal.

John Henry; 1/26/24, 12:43 PM
Leslie Graves said...: Thanks for recommending this. I wouldn't have otherwise heard of it.; 1/26/24, 12:51 PM
Patrick said...: I agree with Gerda that the podcasters are not great. I've enjoyed the voice actors doing the transcripts. I have fast forwarded to those parts because I haven't found the commentary very useful. Goes I found it though.; 1/26/24, 1:06 PM
Patrick said...: Also, the podcasters are clearly on the side of Steyn and Simberg. I am too but this clearly colors their opinion of the strength of each side arguments and which portions of the trial to highlight. Consequently, I am not confident I am getting an accurate picture of the trial.; 1/26/24, 1:09 PM
Eva Marie said...: Thank you so much for publicizing this podcast.; 1/26/24, 1:49 PM
Leland said...: Listening now (at 23min) about how Mann wanted to destroy "National Review". Where Mann failed, Trump succeeded.; 1/26/24, 1:54 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Mann is laying the blame for his data on others. Which leads me to believe that the data wasn't vetted or was delivered as altered.”

As I understand it, it wasn’t bad data, as much as bad analysis, discovered by statisticians, without proper Climate Science credentials (McIntire, etc). And one reason that Mann can’t retract and back down, is that he started it with his PhD dissertation. Admitting that he was wrong would essentially admit that the award of his PhD was erroneous.; 1/26/24, 2:39 PM
Mark said...: "Consequently, I am not confident I am getting an accurate picture of the trial."

As accurate as MSNBC would be lol; 1/26/24, 3:20 PM
Tina Trent said...: Steyn is Canadian by birth, educated in Britain. He is among the smartest, and definitely the funniest political writers of our era. Yet the court accused him of being a "high school dropout," thought he is not and that is illegal in Britain.

Our courts are showing their collective ass.

His earlier deposition is the funniest legal document I ever read, though my husband's received "Motion to Kiss My Ass" while clerking is also cheering.

I can't link to the deposition here as my office has half a floor and I have no desire to fall through the beams to reach the files or computer. So maybe someone else can link to it -- or find me a contractor. Contractors, they do age early, especially the best of them.; 1/26/24, 3:28 PM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/26/24, 4:06 PM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/26/24, 4:12 PM
Gerda Sprinchorn said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/26/24, 4:17 PM
Leland said...: Just know I'm giving mezzrow a dirty look for standing in the way.; 1/26/24, 4:21 PM
Ampersand said...: Jury trials proceed on two tracks. One track is usually about the jury's hunger to figure out who is the good guy, and who is the baddie. The other track is about the effort by the lawyers to make the record which will save a judgment in their favor, or overturn a judgment against them. I can't comment yet on the second track, as it requires both sides to finish their cases.
As for the first track, because the judge is allowing the parties' exceptional latitude to deflect and ramble away from questions, each side is getting its story out. The Mann/Simberg/Steyn trial so far seems to be demonstrating that Mann is a vindictive careerist hypocrite who brought the suit without committing a penny of his own money, in order to destroy defendants that he regards as "human filth". The Mann story pretends that Steyn and Simberg were the only people criticizing him, and that any unpleasant nonverbal encounter he had with strangers in the months after these internet postings was the consequence of the Steyn/Simberg statements. He has already been caught in a number of misleading statements, and some (especially re damages)that are not credible.

Even a bad jury should be able to figure this one out.; 1/26/24, 6:08 PM
Tina Trent said...: Begley: Mann's income went up from publicity and celebrity endorsements after Stern's blog post, but his grant funding went down. Overall, it was an increase in income. So on what grounds was his reputation affected? Is it merely financial? Or status-conscious? Its an interesting question. But I'm not a lawyer. How does one measure this type of loss yet gain, financially or otherwise?; 1/26/24, 8:21 PM
Jamie said...: Mann's damages analysis cries out for deconstruction. He looked at research grants four years before and after the alleged defamation.

And

Mann's income went up from publicity and celebrity endorsements after Stern's blog post, but his grant funding went down. Overall, it was an increase in income

... even if his research grant dollars decreased.

ISTM that these two statements together could easily be seen to point to one conclusion: Mann's supporters still respected him well enough, but the grantors who had been funding his research experienced sufficient doubt or uncertainty about the hypothesis, the data, the data analysis, or the conclusion to cause them to lower their grants.

That's not defamation. That's science.

In science, the fact that someone donated to you in the past is in no way a guarantee that they'll donate to you in the future. Sometimes you just... go down the wrong path. If you've shown yourself to be conscientious, maybe your grantors will continue to support you in your next attempt to test a hypothesis. It's not the end of the world to be wrong, if you're honest.

And I'll repeat: the fact that Mann is now at PENN when he was at much lower-ranked Penn State indicates that he suffered no reputational damage.; 1/27/24, 12:54 AM
Arthur Kinley said...: Excellent background here

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-1-27-some-notes-on-the-trial-of-mann-v-steyn; 1/28/24, 3:16 PM