Mark Steyn Moves to Endgame in Legal Battle with Michael Mann

This has gone on too long, largely because Michael Mann has been delaying ever since he realized the threat to his reputation posed by discovery. This motion by Mark Steyn for summary judgment may bring all that to an end.
Mark Steyn files an eviscerating Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann libel suit
Charles Rotter
Twitter thread from Stephen McIntyre -- Mark Steyn has filed an eviscerating and well-informed Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann vanity libel suit. https://www.steynonline.com/documents/10973.pdf with memorandum 2/ Steyn, for…

 

As Steyn says, the process is the punishment. Hopefully Steyn can get court costs for this decade long BS.

 

Meanwhile, Michael Mann descends into incoherence.

Mann Overboard: Reptiles to the Rescue
Posted on 17 Feb 21 by GEOFF CHAMBERS • 10 Comments


Here’s a few choice quotes from Michael Mann’s new book: The New Climate War: P2 Joined by billionaire plutocrats like the Koch brothers, the Mercers, the Scaifes, companies such as ExxonMobil funneled billions of dollars into a disinformation campaign beginning in the late 1980s, working to discredit the science behind human-caused climate change and its … Co

 

Steyn Files New Motion in Perpetual Mann Case
Charles Rotter
We have shown here, and in Steyn’s affirmative motion for summary judgment, that the three allegedly defamatory statements in paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint are true. We have demonstrated…

 

Friday Funny: The Folly of Mann
Anthony Watts
Ted Nordhaus takes no prisoners in the article on our favorite foil, when Mann starts to diss even people on his own side of the aisle. His subtitle sums it…

 

The court is not leaning MM's way.

National Review wins, Michael Mann loses!
Andy May
By Andy May The D.C. Superior Court dismissed Michael Mann’s lawsuit against the National Review today in a definitive way. The National Review was sued by Mann over a blog…

 

Yup. Mann asks:

​

 

Update On Michael Mann v. Mark Steyn Litigation
March 29, 2021/ Francis Menton

• 
  In my last post a couple of days ago, I referred to the defamation lawsuit brought by Michael Mann against Mark Steyn as an example of abusive litigation seeking to use the expense of the legal process to suppress public debate on an important subject.
  
  
• The lawsuit was originally brought in October 2012. Other defendants in the case include National Review (where Steyn published the blog post that is the subject of the lawsuit), Competitive Enterprise Insititute (which published another blog post which Steyn used as a basis for his own post) and Rand Simberg (author of the CEI blog post).
  

• The tortured history of this case very well illustrates the difficulty of trying to strike a good balance between, on the one hand, having libel law as a mechanism for people to defend themselves against false statements that could ruin their reputations and, on the other hand, having a wildly expensive litigation process that can be wielded as a weapon by the powerful to threaten to bankrupt political opponents and thereby silence debate on important topics of public interest.
  

READ MORE

 

From Mark Steyn's website:

Global warm-monger Michael E Mann's defamation suit against me for maligning his hockey stick is now in its tenth year in the fetid septic tank of American "justice". Way back in early 2013, when the healthy glow of late middle-age had not yet faded from my now wizened cheeks, I asked the (if memory serves) second trial judge if we could just get the hell on with it and go to trial. He turned me down, alas. But here we are, a mere eight-and-a-half years later, and my wish has very belatedly been granted. We will be going to trial, albeit with rather fewer defendants than once were.

 

Yup. I doubt MM will be so foolish as to actually get into a courtroom with Steyn, but if he does the reputational carnage will be immense.

 

There's detailed discussion here. See especially AW's comments.
Monday Mirthiness: Mann thrice loses, but is going to court anyway! (wellll, maybe)
Anthony Watts
From Mark Steyn’s opinion piece today at steynonline.com You’re Once, Twice, Three Times a Loser…Michael E Mann, Loser (Again) (and Again) ~Global warm-monger Michael E Mann’s defamation suit against me…

 

Well I would hope that he would be so foolish to get into a courtroom with Steyn.

Amazing the amount of global warming money going into defending Mann in court.

 

It's a beautiful dream.

 

This thread has nothing to do with the environment, conservation, or climate science. It is about the law.

There is no evidence that Michael Mann committed fraud and the defendants, Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, haven't presented
evidence of fraud but have made accusations of fraud. As long as they made the claim of fraud based on ignorance they can't be
held legally liable. I believe that they were ignorant when they wrote their articles on Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.

Michael Mann requested that both Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg retract their claims of fraud and they refused.

The burden of proof is very high for Michael Mann and the odds of him winning a lawsuit against Steyn and Simberg are low, IMO. Mann
wanted the courts to vindicate him on the science, but that is also a long shot because the courts won't want to get involved.

Nine Years After Filing a Lawsuit, Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wants a Court to Affirm the Truth of His Science - Inside Climate News

"Despite the public bluster, the defendants’ approach in court has been conservative. They have maintained that they didn’t have to prove that Mann’s science was a “fraud” or “deception”—the words the bloggers used. In its motion to dismiss the case, the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the burden of proof was on Mann to show that each defendant knew the statements at issue were false, or entertained serious doubts about their truth."

"Steyn, when questioned during his deposition in the case, admitted that at the time of his writing he had never read any of the investigations by the American agencies, which he called “that bewildering array of acronyms beginning with ‘N.'” In fact, he testified that he did not take much time at all to write the blog, but said it was informed by his years of study of global warming, which he said he believes is happening but is caused by natural cycles. He likened himself to the artist James Whistler, who once claimed that one of his paintings, although finished quickly, gained worth from his lifetime of experience. “My post… took whatever it was to write; 20, 30 minutes… but certainly a couple of decades of experience,” Steyn testified."

"In his new motion, Mann argues that the defendants’ positions in the case have been weakened significantly because their own witnesses declined to testify that the Penn State scientist committed scientific misconduct or fraud."

"Under First Amendment law, a public figure, which Mann is, has a high burden of proof in defamation cases. Such a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with “actual malice,” knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. But in making the motion for a ruling on the truth of his science, Mann’s side is arguing that the underlying facts matter, regardless of what happens with the defense’s Constitutional arguments"

“For years, the defendants have been boasting that they wanted to get us into court so they could question us under oath. For years they have been boasting that the documents they would subpoena from us would prove that the hockey stick research was improperly manipulated,” Mann said, through his attorneys. “They came up with nothing. And they came up with nothing because their statements were absolutely baseless, to the extent that even their own witnesses had to acknowledge that there was no fraud, no deception, no corruption, no misconduct."

"In an editorial, National Review editor Rich Lowry mused about gaining access to Mann’s files if he sued and hiring a “dedicated reporter to comb through” the material and expose Mann’s “methods and maneuverings to the world.”

That investigative project has never materialized, even though Mann’s side has produced more than 1 million documents in the defamation suit he filed, now entering its ninth year. The material includes emails, correspondence, notes, drafts and discussions with co-authors—including all the background material for his seminal 1998 and 1999 papers charting this century’s dramatic temperature rise, the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph."

 

Michael Mann has not lost a case based on the science. If the scientific merits are considered in the upcoming cases with Mark Steyn and Ran Simberg,
Michael Mann will win. The judge will only allow Mann to have one expert witness and the defendants are allowed two expert witnesses. Michael Mann
wanted to call 7 expert witnesses. I don't expect that the defendant's expert witnesses will be able to establish any evidence of fraud.

 

All that Mark Steyn had to do was apologize and retract his statements about Michael Mann. That would have ended it 9 years ago but he has maintained
his claim of fraud with no evidence. Here is the brief article that is the basis of the lawsuit. I think that this article is pathetic and the National Review disgraced
itself by publishing it.

Football and Hockey by Mark Steyn published in the National Review July 15, 2012

In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann 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.

Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? 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.

 

If MM is stupid enough to actually get into a courtroom against Mark Steyn then MM will be ripped to shreds. I would hope that Steve McIntyre can be called as a witness.

 

I assume that the only evidence that will be allowed will be evidence of fraud committed by Michael Mann. He has already been cleared of fraud by
Penn. State University and the National Science Foundation.

DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg thinks that Michael Mann has a valid case.

All quoted comments are from a Mother Jones article, A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky – Mother Jones

"Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist’s complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants’ claims that the fraud allegations were “pure opinion,” which is protected by the First Amendment:
Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable."

Mark Steyn seems to have a personality similar to Donald Trump - he like to attack judges and makes stupid, baseless comments.

"the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn’s counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client."

:The lawyers’ withdrawal came shortly after Steyn—a prominent conservative pundit who regularly fills in as host of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show—publicly attacked the former judge in the case, Natalia Combs Greene, accusing her of “stupidity” and “staggering” incompetence."

 

Steyn will likely read into the record the comments of MM's fellow climate scientists, as quoted on the record in Steyn's book.
A detailed review of the book: 'A Disgrace to the Profession', by Mark Steyn
2015 › 08 › 28 › a-detailed-review-of-the-book-a-disgrace-to-the-profession-by-mark-steyn
Mark Steyn has written a wonderful new book on Dr. Michael Mann’s hockey stick ... Steyn’s book documents the problems with the hockey stick

MM's case against National Review has already been dismissed.
Michael E Mann, Loser
2019 › 09 › 20 › michael-e-mann-loser
evicerates Mann’s blathering online about not really losing to Tim Ball. ... For a start, although Mann always ... before the Court were Mann's, in his statement of claim against Ball. Those Mann allegations have been

 

MM are McKitrick and McIntyre and their analysis is inferior to that of Michael Mann's analysis. As the Wikipedia article on the Hockey Stick Graph states there are
more than 2 dozen reconstructions using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, that support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.

This is from realclimate.org
RealClimate: False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. 1998 reconstruction

False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (199 reconstruction
Filed under:

• Paleoclimate

— mike @ 4 December 2004

A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (199 proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). These criticisms are contained in two manuscripts (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2004–the latter manuscript was rejected by Nature; both are collectively henceforth referred to as “MM”). MM claim that the main features of the Mann et al (1998–henceforth MBH98 reconstruction, including the “hockey stick” shape of the reconstruction, are artifacts of a) the centering convention used by MBH98 in their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank (‘ITRDB’) data, b) the use of 4 infilled missing annual values (AD 1400-1403) in one tree-ring series (the ‘St. Anne’ Northern Treeline series), and c) the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980. Each of these claims are demonstrated to be false below.

[McIntyre and McKitrick have additionally been discredited in a recent peer-reviewed article by Rutherford et al (2004)].

[Added 1/6/05: See also “On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick” which discredits the claimed “Monte Carlo” experiment results from the rejected McIntyre and McKitrick

 

"MM" is always Michael Mann. McIntyre and McKitrick are always spelled out in full out of respect.
As I posted earlier, the MBH 98 "hockey stick" can only be replicated by replicating its errors, especially the inclusion of stripbark bristlecone chronologies specifically recommended against by the NAS. Of course RealClimate defends the stick; they're participants in the errors.

PAGES2K: North American Tree Ring Proxies Oct 24, 2018 – 1:57 PM
The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the unique role of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions). In today’s post, I’ll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two aspects:

• even though PAGES (2013) was held out as the product of superb quality control, more than 80% of the North American tree ring proxies of PAGES (2013) were rejected in 2017, replaced by an almost exactly equal number of tree ring series, the majority of which date back to the early 1990s and which would have been available not just to PAGES (2013), but Mann et al 2008 and even Mann et al 1998;
• the one constant in these large networks are the stripbark bristlecone/foxtail chronologies criticized at Climate Audit since its inception. All 20(!) stripbark chronologies isolated by Mann’s CENSORED directory re-appear not only in Mann et al (200, but in PAGES (2013). In effect, the paleoclimate community, in apparent solidarity with Mann, ostentatiously flouted the 2006 NAS Panel recommendation to “avoid” stripbark chronologies in temperature reconstructions. In both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017), despite ferocious data mining, just as in Mann et al 1998, there is no Hockey Stick shape without the series in Mann’s CENSORED directory.

PAGES2K references: PAGES (2013) 2013 article and PAGES (2017) url; (Supplementary Information).
Continue reading →

 

Grafting yearly temperature data onto much lower resolution proxy data is science malpractice.

LOL.

 

The D.C. Superior Court dismissed Michael Mann’s lawsuit against the National Review.

 

The reviewer was not impressed by MM's book.
The Tragedy of the Climate Wars
Charles Rotter
Consistently demonizing those who think differently than you makes it harder, if not impossible, to forge alliances. . . .

". . . This is an America-first book. It perpetuates the fallacy that the global politics of climate change can be read through the peculiar lens of American political partisanship. The other climate superpowers—the European Union (6 mentions), China (, Brazil (3), and India (0)—seem bit players for Mann. There is no analysis about the political economy of the global energy transition, and he is dismissive of the global challenge of alleviating energy poverty (“a contrived concept”). And Mann uses a trick he accuses his enemies of using—trivialization—when the concerns of those arguing for a just transition for the world’s poor are swept aside with his disdainful comment “there are always winners and losers.”

https://issues.org/new-climate-war-michael-mann-hulme-review/
Read the full review here.

 

Michael Mann has finally been cornered in court.
Mann V. Steyn Goes to Trial After 12 Years
Charles Rotter

Jury selection ongoing. Lots of last minute depositions piss off the judge. . . . .