The Michael Mann lawsuit is a complicated affair and this is not the place to describe the details. But, a decision was just handed down that I know many of you will want to know about.

The brief version is this: Mann sued the National Review and others over defamation. That’s a good suit and he’ll probably eventually win it. Climate science deniers have been trying to paint that as a frivolous suit for years, but it isn’t.

Along the way, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals made a decision that allowed the suit to go forward. The encapsulated version of that: Defendant(s) argued that the case should be thrown out, and the judge said no way Jose to that. Then, defendant(s) appealed that decision, and just now, the court said no way Jose to that too.

(I am being vague about the term “defendant” because there are multiple, the number has changed, an the name by which at least one of the defendants goes has varied over time, and I don’t want to get into those complexities here).

For those of you versed in the relevant area of law, do feel free to read the decision and comment below. This is the PDF file of the decision.

This is the sixth out of six decisions that have come down in favor of science: Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann, Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann supreme Court Appeal, ATI v. UVA/Mann, ATI v. UVA/Mann Supreme Court Appeal, Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court, Mann v. CEI/NRO DC Appeals Court.

ADDED: Professor Mann has issued a statement about this decision:

…on Today’s Appeals Court Decision Affirming My Right to Proceed With My Defamation Suit Against The Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review

Quoting from the decision:

“[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.” (p. 101)

We are particularly pleased that the court, after performing an independent review of the evidence, found that the allegations against me have been ‘definitively discredited’.

I am pleased by this unanimous decision of the court and we now look forward to presenting our claims of defamation to a jury.

Comments

  1. #1 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Finally!

    Now we can finally get to the discovery phase of the case.

    I am looking forward to Dr. Mann’s deposition(s).

    I hope the transcripts are published and not sealed by the court.

    We still have the potential for summary judgment.

    If those motions are denied, than we will have a trial.

    If the case gets to trial, we will finally get to see what a jury thinks of the factual issues in this case.

    I hope it doesn’t take another four years to resolve this suit.

  2. #2 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Oh, dear, prick, the discovery is for Steyn et al.

    If Steyn can’t indicate anything proving that he had reasonable to indicate his accusations, all Mann has to do is POINT TO HIS ACCUSATIONS.

    Which is why Steyn et al have been fighting for years to kick this out.

  3. #3 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    …reasonable evidence…

  4. #4 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “If the case gets to trial, we will finally get to see what a jury thinks of the factual issues in this case.”

    Of course, since you’re insane, you think that the facts of the case indicate that the hockey stick is a fraud.

    But they aren’t.

    The fact is that Steyn libeled Man with malice and reckless disregard for the truth, and unless Steyn has some evidence supporting his claims, he will be guilty of reckless disregard of the truth and libel. And discovery, as Judge Greene said, may discover actual malice in this case from Steyn, in which case Mann will be able to sue for compensation.

  5. #5 Greg Laden
    December 22, 2016

    See update added to post, statement from Professor Mann.

  6. #6 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “Now we can finally get to the discovery phase of the case. I am looking forward to Dr. Mann’s deposition(s).”

    See what I mean? The poor lad has shit where normal people have brains.

  7. #7 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #4:

    Of course Dr. Mann gets to do discover to support his claims.

    Just as the defendant’s get to do discovery to rebut Mann’s claims and also support their affirmative defenses (such as truth).

    Dr. Mann’s counsel will get to take Steyn’s deposition (and all other defendants).

    Steyn’s counsel will get to take Dr. Mann’s deposition (actually each defendant gets to take Dr. Mann’s deposition).

    I am looking forward to these depositions.

  8. #8 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “Oh, dear, prick, the discovery is for Steyn et al.”

    RickA was informed of that fact many hundreds of times over the past two years. The defendants’ lawyers will have already told the defendants that “deposing” Dr Mann would be pointless, idiotic, and cost thousands of dollars which the defendants must pay.

    If a judge finds out the defendants wish to “depose” Dr Mann, the judge will be utterly baffled regarding why, and the judge will likely ask the defendants’ lawyers if the lawyers explained these facts to the defendants.

    In defamation cases, plaintiffs are not deposed; generally, only personal injury plaintiffs are deposed.

    Regarding Dr Mann’s case, there is absolutely nothing Dr Mann has in his possession, nor any knowledge Dr Mann has not already provided, that a deposition can produce. Every lawyer in the case, and all judges, know this fact. The defendants also know this fact.

  9. #9 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “Of course, since you’re insane, you think that the facts of the case indicate that the hockey stick is a fraud.”

    That issue is not likely to even be brought up; it is utterly, completely non sequitur. Nothing Dr Mann has said, written, or done has any relevance to the case.

  10. #10 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow and Desertphile:

    You two are totally wrong about this.

    Ask any lawyer.

    Does the defendant get to depose the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit?

    I think you will find out that they do.

    I cannot wait for Mann’s deposition.

    I am making popcorn right now!

  11. #11 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Desertphile #9 said “Nothing Dr Mann has said, written, or done has any relevance to the case.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    There are many questions (hundreds) which Dr. Mann will have to answer which are relevant to the case.

    For example – one of the defendants affirmative defenses is truth.

    If they can prove that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph is fraudulent they win.

    So one could ask Dr. Mann many many questions about all of his various hockey stick graphs.

    The censored directory, the upside down varves, the PCA technique, the strip-bark, yamal, the R2 statistic, the WMO cover, the process used to create each one, how many different graphs were created before each one was finalized and published, and on and on.

    These are just off the top of my head – I am sure if I reviewed all the stuff I have read over the years I could think of dozens more issues – all of which go to whether it is true that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph is fraudulent.

    All of these issues, and any issue raised over at Climate Audit as to any Mann hockeystick graph can be inquired about (at least anything published before defendant’s allegedly defaming articles).

    I could think of thousands of relevant questions – all of which go to the issue of truth.

    Oh it will be fun!

    Then one could ask lots of questions about Dr. Mann’s emotional distress.

    Or his alleged damage.

    And on and on.

    Dr. Mann will be deposed and probably deposed be each defendant.

    I hope the transcripts are public.

  12. #12 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Of course Dr. Mann gets to do discover to support his claims.”

    And can depose information from NRI/CEI and Steyn. You know, things like emails and so forth between them, just like was done to Mann and other climate scientists when they were facing court for, well, daring to say AGW was happening when that was inconvenient.

    Mann doesn’t need to show any evidence other than that which is already there: the claims by Steyn et al, and the evidence that this was a load of bollocks.

    If Steyn can’t show reason why he still thought Mann was a fraud and committed criminal acts, then he’s guilty.

  13. #13 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #12:

    Its ok Wow.

    You can believe anything you like about how litigation works.

    You might want to read a little or ask a lawyer a question or two about your theories – but if you don’t want to – thats ok with me.

  14. #14 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Just as the defendant’s get to do discovery to rebut Mann’s claims and also support their affirmative defenses (such as truth).”

    But since their claims are a load of bollocks, there’s not liable to be a lot of truth for them to put forward. And any such evidence MUST ALREADY BE THEIRS.

    They don’t get to fish Mann for evidence that their claims were valid AFTER they insisted they were supported by evidence.

    Yet more proof that prick here isn’t a lawyer.

  15. #15 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Don’t worry, prick, I’ll keen knowing what reality means, you keep living in the bubble of self deception.

  16. #16 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “If they can prove that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph is fraudulent they win.”

    Yup, if such evidence exists. But they’ve never produced any. Not even at the investigation Steyn himself was part of bringing about, the result of which he can hardly disclaim knowing.

    But if they DO have it, AND produce it, then they win. They haven’t to date and have had years to do so.

  17. #17 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “So one could ask Dr. Mann many many questions about all of his various hockey stick graphs.”

    Really?

    “The censored directory,”

    Irrelevant to the HS or proving Mann’s actions.

    ” the upside down varves,”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation.

    ” the PCA technique”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation. And the three others. And a dozen further studies, all of which repeated the HS shape, therefore proving the technique adequate and not fraudulent.

    “the strip-bark,”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation.

    ” yamal”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation.

    “the R2 statistic”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation.

    ” the WMO cover,”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation.

    ” the process used to create each one,”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation.

    “how many different graphs were created before each one was finalized and published,”

    Already in the scientific publication. And part of the NSF investigation.

    ” and on and on.”

    Since the others are already addressed and found baseless for such accusations as made against Mann, you really need to fill on those “on”s.

  18. #18 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “all of which go to whether it is true that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph is fraudulent.”

    However, you only ever read denier sites, and that means you haven’t read anything other than one side of the story, and the one that ignores almost all the facts. You know, like the scientific literature and the many investigations into the matter and their conclusions.

    “Think” is rather a grandiose claim for what you’re doing, prick.

  19. #19 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Nothing Dr Mann has said, written, or done has any relevance to the case.”

    Indeed not, but Steyn et al, in order to keep money coming in, has woven this story of how he’ll be fishing for information form Mann, and is therefore REALLY looking forward to it (all the while running around screaming for a way to get out of it…. hmmm…).

    And the little prick here likes that, so has manufactured a reality where this might happen.

    And he’s quite happy to be proven wrong. Until he’s proven wrong, in which case he’ll ignore the result and claim a conspiracy or lies to the court.

  20. #20 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #17:

    Oh wow . . .

    It doesn’t matter if the issue was part of a prior investigation or already in the scientific publication..

    The defendant’s get to ask Dr. Mann themselves – about the graphs, about the publications the graphs appeared in and anything else that is relevant to any issue in the case.

    Evidence at trial can actually be Dr. Mann’s answer to a question during a deposition.

    The defendant’s create evidence with each answer Dr. Mann gives at a deposition.

    But I can understand from your comments how little you understand about litigation.

    Believe what you want.

  21. #21 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Any other lawyer lurkers reading this?

    Please jump in and set Wow straight.

  22. #22 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “It doesn’t matter if the issue was part of a prior investigation or already in the scientific publication..”

    Yes it does.

  23. #23 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “The defendant’s get to ask Dr. Mann themselves”

    No they don’t. If they don’t know WHY they think it’s a fraud, they can’t go looking NOW for proof. If they made the claims without any proof, then their claims are fraudulent and liable for prosecution.

    When the prosecution have made their case on the facts, the defence has to then DEFEND against the facts with their own set of facts.

    NSF investigated Mann. What Mann says about it is irrelevant.

    Then again, you’re not a lawyer, you only claim to be one.

  24. #24 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Even if Steyn managed a Matlock moment and Mann got up in court and claimed that he did fabricate it all, NONE OF THAT WAS KNOWN BY STEYN ET AL WHEN THEY MADE THEIR CLAIMS. Therefore the claims made were in reckless disregard of the truth, based on false assertions of fact.

    But in that fantasy world, Mann would be open to be sent to court for fraud when admitting it, but that would be rather too late to protect these moronic blowhards.

    Funny how you protect people with the same idiocy problems as you have, prick.

  25. #25 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Oh wow . . .

    Please stop.

    Your embarrassing yourself.

  26. #26 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Nope, I’m just not agreeing with yourself, so you’re trying reverse ad hom to shut me up.

    Hence your inability to make any concrete claims, just the pasty-ass “You’re embarrassing yourself”.

    Would YOU stop posting your bollocks based on anyone else here telling you you’re making a fool of yourself? You haven’t so far, so we know the answer is “No”.

    So why do you think it will work on anyone else?

  27. #27 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Ok Wow.

    I will stop trying to help.

  28. #28 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Will you? In what way were you helping before? And why?

    Tell you what, when Steyn breaks down and hands over emails with several senators promising money and high position in government if he rubbishes Michael Mann, you can berate him and wonder why you didn’t ask Steyn any questions about HIS story.

  29. #29 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Hey, desertphile, BBD, Brainstorms and others, maybe we should stop trying to help rick here. Maybe we ought to just rip him to shreds instead.

  30. #30 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Rick, if I tell everyone where your nephew lives and that you molested him sexually several times between the ages of 4 and 9, you may have a case against me if you hadn’t been buggering your young nephew.

    But if you start collecting pictures now he’s 14, undressed and in erotic poses, I can’t use that as proof my claims were right. I can’t get you arrested for child molestation, only for possessing child porn.

    Because the accusation of child molesting, even though true, is based on nothing more than knowing where your nephew lives as far as evidence I can provide to a court (hearsay being invalid), and that means you could sue me for libel for telling everyone your secret. And that isn’t falsified by finding child porn of your nephew on your computer, because that’s a different accusation I have currently no information about.

  31. #31 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #30:

    I already have a defamation case against you Wow.

    From #4 – where you stated that I was insane.

    But don’t worry – I won’t sue.

  32. #32 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #30:

    Now pay attention Wow.

    In your hypo, do you think I get to take my nephew’s deposition and ask him if he was every sexually molested?

    What if he were to admit in the deposition that – no – he was never sexually molested.

    Can you see the relevancy?

    Think about how that applies to the Mann Steyn situation.

    Do you still think the Defendant doesn’t get to ask the Plaintiff anything?

  33. #33 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    And when you take me to court, I’ll demand access to all your computer files and want you and your nephew to be brought in for questioning in court.

  34. #34 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    What if he were to admit in the deposition that – yes – he was severely sexually molested.

  35. #35 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #34:

    Yes – that would be consistent with the complaint.

    You could even use that portion of the deposition transcript at trial. However, it would not be any more persuasive than the complaint allegation paragraph.

    More relevant would be the Nephew’s deposition of the Uncle, IF he admitted that he did molest.

    They get to take each other’s depositions – do you see my point?

    Even though the depositions take place after the suit is filed, and they are asking about stuff which happened before the suit was filed – yes – you get to ask and use the answers at trial (if you want to).

  36. #36 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #33:

    Yes – you would get to take my deposition.

    And I would get to take yours.

    I would ask you your basis for saying I was insane (for example).

    You could ask me if I had ever been diagnosed as insane (for example).

    The questions and answers could be very relevant to a claim of defamation.

  37. #37 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “More relevant would be the Nephew’s deposition of the Uncle”

    Your nephew isn’t bringing a case against you, because you groomed him when he was 4.

    And I need access to all your computer files so I can get the emails and pics you had of your sexual activities with him.

  38. #38 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Yes – you would get to take my deposition.”

    No, I don’t want or need your deposition: you’re hardly going to tell everyone what you did with your nephew when he was 4. I need access to your accounts, your computer, your emails and your locked safe, where you’ve hidden the evidence of your crimes.

  39. #39 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #37:

    Your off on a tangent now.

    My nephew isn’t suing me for molesting him?

    Now, in your new hypo, you are suing me for molesting my nephew?

    What is your standing to sue on his behalf?

    Hopefully you are the legal guardian of my nephew, in your hypo.

  40. #40 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “My nephew isn’t suing me for molesting him?”

    Yes.

    “What is your standing to sue on his behalf?”

    None.

    You’re suing me for libel, so I get access to your computer and files and effects so I can prove that you ARE a paedo.

  41. #41 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Or maybe in your hypo we are related?

    Maybe my nephew is your son, in your hypo?

  42. #42 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Eeewww, no I’m no relation to a sicko who fiddles his own 4 year old nephew.

  43. #43 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Why are you so desperate to avoid discovery here, rick? If you were innocent like you claim, you would want discovery to go ahead! You wouldn’t want it to go ahead if you were GUILTY, though.

  44. #44 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #40:

    Ok – I get it now.

    I am suing you for libel, for calling me insane, and you get to investigate me for child abuse.

    Your point being that child abuse isn’t relevant to defamation – I assume.

    So you don’t think asking Dr. Mann about his hockey stick graph is relevant to the issue of whether it is fraudulent or not.

    I get it.

    I don’t agree – but I think I see where you are coming from now.

  45. #45 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “I am suing you for libel, for calling me insane, and you get to investigate me for child abuse.”

    No, you ARE insane, truth is an absolute defence.

    I’m also telling everyone how you raped your nephew from the ages of 4 to 9. So you have to show me your files and give me access to your papers so I can show everyone what you’ve done.

  46. #46 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “So you don’t think asking Dr. Mann about his hockey stick graph is relevant to the issue of whether it is fraudulent or not.”

    Since the lawsuit is Mann Vs Steyn et al, the issue is whether Steyn has libeled Mann. Quite why you want Steyn to defend himself against a case not made is part of the evidence of your insanity, prick.

  47. #47 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    I can see it now:

    RickA, SouperLawyer: Mr Mann, is your graph fraudulent or not?
    M Mann: No.
    RickA, SouperLawyer: The case for defence rests.
    Judge: WTF????

  48. #48 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #43:

    I can see you have never been deposed before.

    You actually could ask me all these irrelevant questions at the deposition.

    My lawyer could object on relevancy grounds.

    But I would still have to answer.

    Than at trial, whether that portion of the deposition got admitted into evidence would be up to the Judge – he would decide if it was relevant or not.

    I would have to answer the deposition question.

    The electronic records are a different story.

    You would ask for all my emails and online accounts (or whatever under your hypo).

    I would object on relevancy.

    You would bring a motion to compel.

    The Judge would decide if they were relevant to the issue of defamation, and I would either have to produce or not, depending on how the judge ruled.

  49. #49 Philip Clarke
    December 22, 2016

    “The censored directory”

    To check the robustness of a reconstruction it is common practice to withhold a subset of the data, rebuild the reconstruction and see what the effect is. This is called ‘censoring’ and the data omitted is called censored. Its bog standard terminology. There’s nothing remotely suspicious about it.

    “the upside down varves”

    Assuming you mean Tiljander, when people refer to the ‘hockey stick’, they normally mean MBH 98 and 99 which were first so nicknamed. Tiljander was in Mann 2008, and again he mentioned potential issues with modern contamination and so performed the reconstruction with and without this and other problematic proxies, it made no discernable difference.

    “the PCA technique”,

    Wahl and Ammann showed that the PCA issue made no consequential difference to the curve. It may have been a suboptimal choice but that is not fraud.

    ” the strip-bark”

    I recommend you read the NAS Panel report and what it actually said about strip-barks. Hint:- it is not what McIntyre says it was. Gosh.

    “yamal”

    Again the issue has been overstated. Besides which, Yamal is not in MBH 98/99 as it was published at a later date. Pretty sure it was not in Mann 2008 either so the relevance to the fraud case is moot.

    “the R2 statistic”

    The NAS panel described R2 as having no merit in the context of paleoreconstruction, so Mann did not publish it.

    “the WMO cover”

    Cover art for an obscure report, so what? The provenance of the chart was given on the inside cover.

    “The process used to create each one, how many different graphs were created before each one was finalized and published, and on and on”

    Again, so what? Steyn described the published graph as fraudulent, not any preliminary work.

  50. #50 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #45:

    Interesting hypo.

    I don’t think it would work out the way you hope.

  51. #51 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “You actually could ask me all these irrelevant questions at the deposition.”

    What’s irrelevant about needing your access to your computer where you keep your kiddie porn? THAT’S WHERE PAEDOS LIKE YOU KEEP YOUR KIDDIE PORN.

    Heck, your attempts to pretend that this is irrelevant to your disgusting perversion merely indicates how depraved you are, having to hide the proof of your unclean depravity.

    “I can see you have never been deposed before.”

    Which is precisely why you’re not a lawyer: this is YOUR insistence on Mann vs Steyn: that Mann has to give Steyn access to everything, even if it’s irrelevant, as long a he claims it’s pertinent.

    PS why do you keep pretending that your paedophilia with your nephew is a hypo? Are you admitting to drug use, or are you trying to kid on that this is merely a hypothetical??? Because the accusation isn’t wrong until you let me prove it.

  52. #52 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “I don’t think it would work out the way you hope.”

    So why do you insist it will work for Steyn?

  53. #53 dean
    December 22, 2016

    At first you wonder how someone could still suggest that “the hockey stick” is based on intentionally fraudulent work.

    Then you realize that the people doing it are folks like rickA, and they do it knowing that what they say is a lie, simply because they find the lie more palatable than the science.

  54. #54 Hank Roberts
    December 22, 2016

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2016/12/christmas-gifts-for-michael-mann-and.html

    “Lumps of coal for Mark Styne and Rand Simberg send the elves from the DC Court of Appeals in a decision handed down today. …”

  55. #55 Toby Joyce
    Ireland
    December 22, 2016

    Oh, goodie, we will be seeing Mark Steyn’s e-mails.

    Boot – other – foot.

  56. #56 BBD
    December 22, 2016

    We conclude that Dr. Mann hurdled the Anti-SLAPP statute’s threshold showing of likelihood of success on the merits because the evidence he has presented is legally sufficient to support findings by the fact-finder that statements in Mr. Simberg’s and Mr. Steyn’s articles were defamatory, were published by appellants to a third party without privilege, and were made with actual malice.

    Ho, ho, ho.

  57. #57 BBD
    December 22, 2016

    All of these issues, and any issue raised over at Climate Audit as to any Mann hockeystick graph can be inquired about (at least anything published before defendant’s allegedly defaming articles).

    I could think of thousands of relevant questions – all of which go to the issue of truth.

    Oh it will be fun!

    You don’t understand how utterly confected the contrarian attacks on Mann’s work actually were. If they wheel this crap out in court, they will be eviscerated in public.

    And that will indeed be fun.

  58. #58 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Remember, rick doesn’t even care that the accusations were SPECIFICALLY about MBH98, so anything about other (especially later) temperature graphs is irrelevant.

    Of course, prick here doesn’t do consistent, because that’s devastating to his sense of calm.

  59. #59 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    Many places in the denialosphere this morning show cultists are outraged over the latest pro-science news— not just “ricka” here. The cultists don’t seem to wonder why the defendants have tried every legal trick they can think of to avoid, evade, and delay being dragged into court for judgement and punishment.

  60. #60 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “Remember, rick doesn’t even care that the accusations were SPECIFICALLY about MBH98, so anything about other (especially later) temperature graphs is irrelevant.”

    As noted by the first two judges, MBH98 is also not relevant to the case; there is only one issue left to resolve— malice. The fact that the defendants lied was resolved more than two years ago.

  61. #61 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Yeah, pretty much. They either have the evidence already that they had reason to believe their lies, or they don’t. This case is about their libeling of Mann, not about the Hockey stick.

    So far, all they’ve done is squeal “But it’s FREE SPEECH!!!!!”, no matter how many times a judge has told them “No it isn’t, dumbasses”, indicating that they don’t have anything to avoid the guilty verdict.

  62. #62 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    But my point was that if they wanted to show how they thought the hockey stick was a fraud and Mann deliberately faked it, that information would have to be for MBH98, so the items that were only for OTHER reconstructions (see Philip Clarke at #49, above) would not, even if they had the proof they were invalid,be admissible in this case.

    And trying to would put them in contempt of court and the lawyers would refuse to do that (as they refuse to now work for Steyn, since he ignored all their advice, and then even tried peddling a book *for profit* repeating his lies, money Mann could easily get the court to pass to him as personal enrichment from criminal activities), because they’d lose their license to practice, and piss off the court system, which can prosecute internal proceedings without having to go through court.

  63. #63 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Philip Clarke #49:

    Thank you for answering my list of deposition issues with your thoughts.

    However, the issues would be turned into a series of questions, which would be put to Dr. Mann.

    Maybe Dr. Mann would answer a particular question the same way you would.

    Or maybe not.

    For example, the censored directory.

    Yes – it might be a subset is withheld.

    Or it might be a different set of proxies, with a graph, which didn’t have the proper message, or didn’t look scary enough – so they censored it.

    You have to ask the question to hear how Dr. Mann answers it – because we only know it exists – not what it was for (as far as I know). Or maybe we even know what was in it? I’d have to review and search to refresh my recollection.

    I am sure a series of questions would still be asked about it – and we don’t know what Dr. Mann will say until we ask the question.

    Still – it would be Dr. Mann’s answers which would be interesting and relevant to the trial – not how other people think he might answer hypothetical questions.

    These issues are all pertinent to the issue of the fraudulent hockey stick graph.

    And wow #62 – did Steyn’s piece specify which of Mann’s graphs was “the” hockey stick graph? I don’t remember it that way.

    Steyn could have been referring to any of the Mann hockey stick graphs published prior to the piece being published.

    MBH98, MBH99, I think there was a Mann reconstruction in 2005, the WMO 1999 hockey stick cover (which Mann claimed authorship to in his CV) – it could refer to any or all of them.

    So you can ask questions about any Mann hockey stick graph published prior to the allegedly defaming piece.

    Of course, Dr. Mann’s counsel could ask Steyn in his deposition if he was referring to a particular hockey stick graph, and if so which one. It would be interesting to hear how Steyn answers that question.

  64. #64 SteveP
    December 22, 2016

    The virulence of the attacks by Simberg and Steyn on Miichael Mann are truly sociopathic, they are truly way beyond the bounds of civilized discourse. They are a presage of the fascist cultural millieu that we are now entering ,where the smear methods of the fascists are applied to a mild mannered scientist because he did not contribute positively to the bottom line of Exxon Mobil.

    “ Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for 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.”

    One of the over-riding values of conservatives these days saddly seems to me to be their defense of their right to hurt others for their own benefit. Look at the Tea Party, the Trumpists, the alt right; being able to pollute and kill are, basically , conservative values. Being able to fool brave and desperate men to expose their lungs to lethal amounts of coal dust is a conservative value. Being able to grope and molest women, being able to murder people of color, being able to start wars to defend your addiction to out-dated energy sources, these are all visible manifestations of the conservative value system. Coming to a Science website and demeaning scientists is a typical conservative behavior. Let’s face it. Conservatives value sadism, they value torture, they value punishment.. And Mark Steyn and National Review and CEI and Rand Simberg are just some of the more egregious manifestations of this conservative sadism disease. They apparently thought that they could get away with being stupid savage bullies because, hey first amendment. They may have thought that they could get away with being uncivilized louts because hey, political correctness, i.e., treating other people decently, is not acceptable to the party of Nazis, thugs, and sociopath billionaires.

  65. #65 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Thank you for answering my list of deposition issues with your thoughts.”

    Weird. I just got “That’s not relevant”, but his answers were the same as mine. But I guess you actually read and understood what he wrote, right?

    “However, the issues would be turned into a series of questions, which would be put to Dr. Mann.”

    Damn, apparently not.

    A problem with a 2008 paper by someone else isn’t Mann’s problem, so the question would be validly objected. Doing so as many times as you did would get your lawyer in contempt and facing charges, along with you.

  66. #66 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “And Mark Steyn and National Review and CEI and Rand Simberg are just some of the more egregious manifestations of this conservative sadism disease”

    Note that they’re all for sadism, as long as they’re deciding who gets it. Turn it about and they’re the thinnest skinned special snowflakes you’d find in any place on the planet.

    Hell, you don’t even have to be against them for them to scream holy murder about being warred on by a minority who doesn’t agree with them.

  67. #67 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    And rick’s refusal to let me access his files could be him hiding his paedophilia for the past 12 years.

  68. #68 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “And wow #62 – did Steyn’s piece specify which of Mann’s graphs was “the” hockey stick graph? ”

    Yes.

    ” I don’t remember it that way.”

    But that’s not possible if you had read as much about this as you appear to have done. Unless y I don’t remember it that way. ou only read”approved” sources, where the denier fantasy is the only stuff you hear.

  69. #69 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    SteveP #64:

    Yes – everybody knows only conservatives call other peoples work fraudulent.

    Why Dr. Mann, a good progressive, would never call anybody’s work fraudulent.

  70. #70 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    Yes, prick, only conservatives are on the public circuit playing to the crowd on sadism and vitriol.

    Of course, you can go digging around in the dirty corners of the internet to find someone bad on the “left”, but then again, you only have to go to infosec to see someone as crazy as anyone you’d find on the internet, but who is on the rightwing.

    False equivalence, prick. Otherwise known as yellow journalism.

  71. #71 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    How many times has Mann called someone’s work fraudulent without any evidence for it (never mind with a plethora of evidence against that claim)?

  72. #72 BBD
    December 22, 2016

    Yes – everybody knows only conservatives call other peoples work fraudulent.

    And now they shall have a chance to demonstrate the fraud.

    This will be fun.

  73. #73 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    In court, too, where the judge won’t accept “But I thought I believed that!” as an excuse.

  74. #74 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #71:

    I am aware of at least one incident.

    In a Feb. 4, 2005 email to Andy Revkin at the New York Times, Dr. Mann said “The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud.”

    Neither McIntyre (of Climate Audit fame) or McKitrick chose to sue for defamation.

  75. #75 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    But it was.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

    Scroll down to myth #3.

    I asked for ones WITHOUT EVIDENCE FOR IT. This one HAS evidence for it being a fraud.

    Hell, the claim “we can get a hockey stick from pink noise” is a patent and known lie: they took the most hockey-stick shapes out of 1000 runs with pink noise *and the size of the hockey stick was nowhere near as pronounced as in MBH98*.

  76. #76 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Neither McIntyre (of Climate Audit fame) or McKitrick chose to sue for defamation.”

    Because the claim was true. Why sue when you know you’ll lose?

  77. #77 tadaaa
    cambridge
    December 22, 2016

    looks like fvcktard over-reach to me, but then I’m no lawyer

    I would ask one, but I can’t afford it 🙂

  78. #78 RickR
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    RickA #11 –

    Looking at the decision, there were four issues: (1) An article by Mr. Simberg (the infamous Jerry Sandusky article), (2) one by Mr. Steyn (the fraud article), (3) one by Mr. Lowery (an opinion piece in the National Review), and (4) the claim of emotional distress. Mann won on issues (1) and (2), basically holding that a jury could find defamation in those to articles. But he lost on the other two, with the court ordering “On remand, the court shall dismiss these claims with prejudice.” So the emotional distress claims are gone.

    As I understand the case, the defendants are not going for the defense that the claims they made were true, but rather that they were, in context, clearly only opinions, and that no reasonable person would take them as being, or intended to be, actual statement of facts; and thus they are protected speech. So there may not be depositions relating to the actual truth of the claim of fraud.

    Of course, once it goes to trial, they may decide to try for some factual aspects. We’ll see.

  79. #79 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #75:

    The point is that Dr. Mann throws around the fraud word when he is trying to smear somebody’s peer reviewed paper with the press – but objects to it when the fraud word is applied to his work.

    That makes Dr. Mann a hypocrite.

    Funny.

  80. #80 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    RickR #78:

    You are correct that Dr. Mann’s claim for emotional distress has been dismissed. So my hypo about asking deposition questions about that is wrong – and probably no such questions (about that issue) would be posed.

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    However I slightly disagree with you about the truth point.

    It is my understanding that Truth was not argued as a reason for dismissing the suit on SLAPP grounds.

    But it was plead as an affirmative defense and can be raised during the rest of the case. For example on summary judgment and at trial.

    So I think the appeals court was talking about this being raised in the briefing related to the motion to dismiss – and not in the entire case per se.

    Remember – this all came up on a preliminary motion to dismiss, before the case has really gotten going.

    I think the truth affirmative defense will be fully explored during the depositions – I would certainly want to ask questions about it.

  81. #81 SteveP
    December 22, 2016

    There are a lot of reallly good take downs by really smart people showing how the McIntyre and McKitrick paper was a piece of shit. Here, for example is one:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

    Ah conservatives.

    Being able to grope and molest women, being able to murder people of color, being able to start wars to defend your addiction to out-dated energy sources, these are all visible manifestations of the conservative value system.

    Wading into the highly successful government STEM research centers, taking ownership out of the hands of the American people, putting the ownership into a few grubby small fingered sociopath and maybe Russian hands. This is a good thing? Apparently to conservatives it is.

    Dismantling government bureaucracies just to prove an ideological point. Destroying STEM careers. Destroying STEM branches of agencies. Just so the conservative sadists in our government can hurt anyone who doesn’t worship their money crusted Jaysus god.

  82. #82 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “The point is that Dr. Mann throws around the fraud word when he is trying to smear somebody’s peer reviewed paper ”

    No, the point is that Mann has ample reason to be of the opinion it’s a fraud, BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE FOR THAT CLAIM.

    According to you, deniers can fling around cries of “FRAUD!”, but it’s not valid for any DENIER paper to be called a fraud, even if it’s a piece of ridiculous crap?

    Doesn’t work like that, moron.

    The POINT is I asked you for a case where Mann called someone a fraud without evidence to support that claim (an easier hurdle than proving an equivalence to Steyn et al, where there was volumes of information showing the claim of fraud to be unfounded), but all you’ve supplied is a claim of fraud in a paper, where there’s plenty of evidence for the claim to be true.

  83. #83 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “So my hypo about asking deposition questions about that is wrong ”

    As are all your other hypos. Hippos? Who cares.

    “It is my understanding that Truth was not argued as a reason for dismissing the suit on SLAPP grounds.”

    Yup. So what? I’m going to guess nothing of import is going to be announced from this realisation.

    “But it was plead as an affirmative defense and can be raised during the rest of the case. For example on summary judgment and at trial.”

    Indeed it can. But I’m waiting for the shoe to drop.

    “I think the truth affirmative defense will be fully explored during the depositions – I would certainly want to ask questions about it.”

    However, you would have to ask Steyn. Mann can’t be grilled over this because Steyn either had no evidence of fraud (therefore guilty) or he does (therefore the evidence can be provided, but by Steyn).

  84. #84 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    wow #82:

    Here we get into a difference of opinion again.

    Steyn would say he has plenty of evidence that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph is fraudulent.

    He wrote a whole book related to this topic – and I am sure he would cite the evidence in it to support his opinion.

    The real question (to me) is should SteveP be hauled into court for saying somebody’s paper is a “piece of shit”. I don’t think so.

    Should Dr. Mann be hauled into court for calling somebody’s elses paper “pure scientific fraud”. I don’t think so.

    And I don’t think Mr. Steyn should be called into court for what he said either (or the other defendants).

    But he was and the case is ongoing, and we won’t know if Dr. Mann was defamed until it is over.

    Wait and see is my motto.

  85. #85 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “I could think of thousands of relevant questions – all of which go to the issue of truth. Oh it will be fun!”

    The only issue facing discovery is who actually wrote the libelous defamation— that is what the deposition is for; that is what the defendants have been desperately trying to avoid. The issue is: Did Stein actually write it, or someone else?

    Regarding the actual trial as both earlier judges already noted, the issue of malice has already been demonstrated, and the current judge is only waiting on the defendants to show the lie was not meant to harm Dr Mann. Both judges stated Mann is “likely to prevail,” and the appeals judge stated the case does not fall under SLAPP prohibitions.

  86. #86 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Here we get into a difference of opinion again.”

    No.

    You don’t get to claim that pi=3 and then call it a “difference of opinion”.

  87. #87 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Wait and see is my motto.”

    But not to wait and see if energy prices will cause death and destruction, though.

    It’s like you’re not honest with this claim.

  88. #88 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “He wrote a whole book related to this topic – and I am sure he would cite the evidence in it to support his opinion.”

    That book has no evidence, just a repeat of his claims which have been found false statements of fact. For a person who claims to be a lawyer, you really don’t understand what the judges say in their rulings.

    Not to mention that the book is out there, and nobody has managed to get Mann up on charges of fraud based on this evidence. Because there’s no proof, only insinuation and known, preconceived lies.

  89. #89 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Should Dr. Mann be hauled into court for calling somebody’s elses paper “pure scientific fraud””

    Especially since the claim is supported by evidence, No.

    But Steyn et al don’t have that going for them. Only evidence they were in reckless disregard for the truth.

  90. #90 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Desertphile #85:

    Three of the defendants tried to get the case dismissed.

    That motion was denied.

    The denial was affirmed on appeal (mostly).

    What the appeals court decision means is that Mann gets to keep his case going to trial.

    Mann still has to prove defamation – he still has the burden of proof.

    The court of appeals was saying that a jury COULD find . . . and that was reason not to dismiss Dr. Mann’s case.

    The court of appeals was not FINDING that Dr. Mann was defamed.

    That issue has yet to be decided.

  91. #91 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “Remember, rick doesn’t even care that the accusations were SPECIFICALLY about MBH98….”

    Dr Mann addressed the issue of what Stein, CEI, and related cultists knew before they libeled him. As Dr Mann and many other people pointed out, the libelers could have spent the two or three minutes necessary to learn their libelous statement is false but they chose to publish the libelous falsehood.

    All of this has already been dealt with by the courts. The issue remaining regards the defendants demonstrating that they did not publish the false statement out of malice; the fact that the statement is false has already been demonstrated to all three judges.

  92. #92 RickA
    December 22, 2016

    Desertphile #91:

    No – the court has not dealt with anything on the merits (except dismissal of the emotional distress claim).

    That is what the trial is for.

  93. #93 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “So far, all they’ve done is squeal ‘But it’s FREE SPEECH!!!!!,’ no matter how many times a judge has told them ‘No it isn’t, dumbasses,’ indicating that they don’t have anything to avoid the guilty verdict.”

    Indeed, and that’s sad when one looks at the defendants’ cult followers.

    The defendants must already understand the fact that no one objects to them stating their false opinions on the subject as long as they #1 clearly state their falsehoods are opinions, and #2 they did not state the falsehoods out of malice. A simple IN OUR OPINION at the start of their lie could have protected them from tort litigation.

  94. #94 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “However, the issues would be turned into a series of questions, which would be put to Dr. Mann.”

    Dr Mann did not libel, slander, and/or defame anyone, S-f-b: the defendants did. There are no questions Dr Mann needs to answer.

  95. #95 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “No – the court has not dealt with anything on the merits”

    No, that’s what the court has DONE. Read the court’s judgement.

  96. #96 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    The virulence of the attacks by Simberg and Steyn on Miichael Mann are truly sociopathic, they are truly way beyond the bounds of civilized discourse. They are a presage of the fascist cultural millieu that we are now entering ,where the smear methods of the fascists are applied to a mild mannered scientist because he did not contribute positively to the bottom line of Exxon Mobil.

    “ Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for 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.”

    One of the over-riding values of conservatives these days saddly seems to me to be their defense of their right to hurt others for their own benefit. Look at the Tea Party, the Trumpists, the alt right; being able to pollute and kill are, basically , conservative values. Being able to fool brave and desperate men to expose their lungs to lethal amounts of coal dust is a conservative value. Being able to grope and molest women, being able to murder people of color, being able to start wars to defend your addiction to out-dated energy sources, these are all visible manifestations of the conservative value system. Coming to a Science website and demeaning scientists is a typical conservative behavior. Let’s face it. Conservatives value sadism, they value torture, they value punishment.. And Mark Steyn and National Review and CEI and Rand Simberg are just some of the more egregious manifestations of this conservative sadism disease. They apparently thought that they could get away with being stupid savage bullies because, hey first amendment. They may have thought that they could get away with being uncivilized louts because hey, political correctness, i.e., treating other people decently, is not acceptable to the party of Nazis, thugs, and sociopath billionaires.

    Well deserves repeating, everywhere.

  97. #97 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “What the appeals court decision means is that Mann gets to keep his case going to trial.”

    With many of their claims ruled down.

    Juries will find out if the case is solid enough to find for Mann, but there’s nothing there to make the claims by Steyn et al true, and they cannot do so in court.

    That’s three judges who have had the evidence from both parties, all of them disagreeing with you.

    And you don’t even play a lawyer on the internet.

  98. #98 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “And rick’s refusal to let me access his files could be him hiding his paedophilia for the past 12 years.”

    I heard it was infant cannibalism. Richa needs to hand over all of his emails, hard drives, etc., so that we can know for sure.

  99. #99 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    “No – the court has not dealt with anything on the merits (except dismissal of the emotional distress claim). That is what the trial is for.”

    Funny how three judges stated you are wrong. All three judges examined merit; that is why the trial has been continued three times.

    Sheeeish.

  100. #100 BBD
    December 22, 2016

    RickA

    The court of appeals was not FINDING that Dr. Mann was defamed.

    That issue has yet to be decided.

    It was allowing that he may have been. Which is a welcome step forward in Jarndyce v Godot, IMO.

  101. #101 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    The court also found it was not protected speech under the first amendment.

  102. #102 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    https://academeblog.org/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-important-court-decision/

    In a victory for both academic freedom and science an appeals court ruled today that climate change scientist and AAUP Committee A member Michael Mann can [sic] sue two conservative writers over allegations that they defamed him. The case centers on posts written by Rand Simberg in a Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog and Mark Steyn on National Review. Among other comments, Simberg called Mann the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.”

  103. #103 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    BBD #100:

    Yes – Dr. Mann may have been defamed.

    So because the Court found that a jury could find defamation on the facts, the didn’t dismiss the case, as the defendant’s asked.

    But that is not the same thing as saying the case is over and Dr. Mann wins.

    Nope – the case goes forward and Dr. Mann still has to prove all the elements of defamation and get a jury to rule in his favor.

    Desertphile and Wow don’t understand this nuance – but that is ok. It should become clear to them eventually.

  104. #104 RickR
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    RickA #80 –

    They may indeed try the defense that the claims are actually true. As I said, we’ll see.

    I would think that they may go only for the more general defense that they could reasonably believe, at the time that they wrote the articles in question, that the paper was fraudulent, rather than going for the full blown defense that they actually were fraudulent. That would be sufficient to defeat the actual malice claim, and would presumably be easier to prove. But this would weaken, if not eliminate, the need to depose Mann, as that more general claim would be based only on what was available to them at time, based as it is on their state of mind rather than on Mann’s.

    But you may be right that they will try for it all.

  105. #105 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “They may indeed try the defense that the claims are actually true. As I said, we’ll see. ”

    But they need to show that evidence.

    They can’t pretend that Mann has it, because that means they knew they were lying when they made the claims.

  106. #106 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    RickR #104:

    They will probably do both.

    They will also argue the statements were protected opinion (not verifiably false).

    We will have to see what happens.

  107. #107 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “I would think that they may go only for the more general defense that they could reasonably believe, at the time that they wrote the articles in question, that the paper was fraudulent,”

    They can’t.

    There are four investigations that they would have known about. Read up on what “reckless disregard for the truth” is.

  108. #108 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “RickR #104:

    They will probably do both.”

    I kind of hope they do, because they’ll only get themselves into trouble with the court,

    Steyn may try, but none of the others. Steyn’s crazy enough to give it a go.

  109. #109 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “We will have to see what happens.”

    What on earth is that supposed to mean, though?

    Lets say we wait. And what happens is Mann wins and also wins damages, with Steyn going in to jail for contempt of court, the NRI and CEI having to also retract and pay for that retraction to be spread as widely as the accusations.

    What will change with you?

    Nothing?

    Then the statement you made was meaningless.

  110. #110 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “Nope – the case goes forward and Dr. Mann still has to prove all the elements of defamation and get a jury to rule in his favor.”

    And that’s nearly 100% there: the words of Steyn. The Four investigations finding no evidence. All that’s missing is no evidence from Steyn to give him plausible reason for his claims.

    When Steyn shows no evidence in support that isn’t annulled by the four investigations, he’s guilty. Steyn’s only hope out is jury nullification.

  111. #111 Wow
    December 22, 2016

    “They will also argue the statements were protected opinion (not verifiably false).”

    They can’t. That’s been ruled on already.

  112. #112 Craig Thomas
    December 22, 2016

    SteveP
    “They are a presage of the fascist cultural millieu that we are now entering ,where the smear methods of the fascists are applied to a mild mannered scientist because he did not contribute positively to the bottom line of Exxon Mobil.”

    In fact, there’s nothing new here:
    “In his effort to ensure that lead was removed from gasoline (petrol), Patterson fought against the lobbying power of the Ethyl Corporation (which employed Kehoe), against the legacy of Thomas Midgley, Jr. (which included tetraethyllead and chlorofluorocarbons); and against the lead additive industry as a whole. Following Patterson’s criticism of the lead industry, he was refused contracts with many research organizations, including the supposedly neutral United States Public Health Service.

    In 1971, he was excluded from a National Research Council (NRC) panel on atmospheric lead contamination even though he was then the foremost expert on the subject.[7]

    The United States mandated the use of unleaded gasoline to protect catalytic converters in all new cars starting with the 1975 model year,[8] but Patterson’s efforts accelerated the phaseout of lead from all standard, consumer, automotive gasoline in the United States by 1986. Lead levels within the blood of Americans are reported to have dropped by up to 80% by the late 1990s.[9]”

  113. #113 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Wow #111:

    Nope – you are wrong on this.

  114. #114 BBD
    December 22, 2016

    But that is not the same thing as saying the case is over and Dr. Mann wins.

    I didn’t say that it was.

    I did quote this:

    We conclude that Dr. Mann hurdled the Anti-SLAPP statute’s threshold showing of likelihood of success on the merits because the evidence he has presented is legally sufficient to support findings by the fact-finder that statements in Mr. Simberg’s and Mr. Steyn’s articles were defamatory, were published by appellants to a third party without privilege, and were made with actual malice.

  115. #115 RickA
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    BBD #114:

    Yep.

    Legally sufficient to support findings . . .

    That means the jury could find against defendants.

    It doesn’t mean that the jury will find against defendants.

    It doesn’t mean that the court has ruled on the merits of the issue.

    It just means that the case goes forward and won’t be dismissed.

    Most of this comment is really for Wow and Desertphile and not for you – as I think you get this.

  116. #116 Kevin O'Neill
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    RickA – Steyn can believe that climate fairies exist and even right a whole *series* of books about it. That doesn’t mean a sane judge is going to admit them as evidence or believe that questions to Dr Mann regarding climate fairies are relevant.

    The problem is claiming *fraud* or *misconduct* when there’s no evidence for it. Science isn’t always done with optimum practice or procedures, but unless the intent is to deceive, then no fraud or misconduct was committed. Ptolemy, Newton, Einstein we’re *wrong* — they didn’t commit fraud. In Dr Mann’s case his result wasn’t even wrong!

    Mann’s hockeystick has been validated many times. None of the picayune methodological choices are relevant *unless* Steyn has evidence that Mann had evidence it would significantly change the results but Mann knowingly refused to ‘correct’ them. Nothing of the kind has ever been shown with any of the choices made.

    It’s actually a pretty telling detail that the hockeystick is immune to all of these methodological ‘mistakes’ — the climate warming signal is obviously far stronger than any of the sub-optimum choices made otherwise the result would have been greatly different than all of the follow-up studies.

    And discovery is not the opening of fishing season. You seem to think that it is. First of all, we’re talking about 1998 — nearly 20 years ago. Do you really think there is anything new even available to look at that hasn’t already been looked at or answered in previous investigations? Again, Steyn can postulate climate fairies, but he’ll be laughed out of court. What’s he going to ask for? “I want all the emails that implicate you in fraud!” Good luck with that.

    One side has already prepared multiple times on these issues. One side has not. Who do you think is more confident?

  117. #117 John Mashey
    United States
    December 22, 2016

    Philip #49
    “the PCA technique”,
    Wahl and Ammann showed that the PCA issue made no consequential difference to the curve. It may have been a suboptimal choice but that is not fraud.

    For sure it didn’t make a difference here, and that’s unsurprising, given that different centering choices get to the ~same place if necessary steps are taken to capture the variability. In fact, the choice they made seems to have yielded PCs that corresponded more directly to physical effects.

    A relevant paper is Cadima & Jolliffe(2009) ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN UNCENTRED AND
    COLUMN-CENTRED PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS.

    Of course, MM05 was a fraud, rather clear if you study the R code that Deep Climate found, plus other evidence of the setup for doing and promoting it. The clear goal was to select and present the most hockeystick-ish graphs to mislead people.

    Then the Wegman Report was academic fraud from one end to the other.
    All that was well-known by 2010-2011.

  118. #118 Hank Roberts
    at the reference desk, again
    December 22, 2016

    > It’s actually a pretty telling detail that the hockeystick
    > is immune to all of these methodological ‘mistakes’
    > — the climate warming signal is obviously far stronger ….

    Point!

  119. #119 Christopher Winter
    December 22, 2016

    As I noted on Facebook, this looks to me like most excellent news for our side — which is to say the reality-based community.

    Consider these two paragraphs:

    “Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming,” Judge Vanessa Ruiz wrote for a three-judge panel.

    “That the challenged statements were made as part of such debate provides important context and requires careful parsing in light of constitutional standards. But if the statements assert or imply false facts that defame the individual, they do not find shelter under the First Amendment simply because they are embedded in a larger policy debate.”

    Source: – http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311495-court-climate-scientist-can-sue-conservative-writers-over-alleged#.WFwlvJlI4I4.facebook

  120. #120 SteveP
    December 22, 2016

    Thanks Desertphile.

    Craig Thomas: Thanks for highlighting the work of Clair Cameron Patterson. Funny that he not only helped save the world from universal lead poisoning, he also gave us the first solid calculation of the real age of the Earth and no, trolls, it wasn’t 6,000 years.

    The sociopathic tendencies of ruling elites probably goes back to far before Stonehendge. Midgley ( who definitely knew it was toxic), Kettering, Clarence Thomas, C.A. Thomas, Monsanto, weapons of annhilation, Ethyl Corp ( which is still alive today!), Exxon Mobil, Richmond Va.,, internal combustion engines , Competitive Enterprise Institute…., total disregard for human suffering or human life; I think I see a theme here. Thanks for exposing me to a little more of the depravity of our species. I’m pleased that Michael Mann still has a shot at serving up some justice to the psychopaths Simberg, Steyn , CEI and NR… but…. in view of the the fact that an unstable psychopath with no small resemblance to Anthony Freemont ( the awful child on the Twilight Zone with God like powers) and with no regard for anybody but himself is about to become president of the USA, Mann’s lawyers had better work fast. There may be no place on the planet left to celebrate their victory at the rate things are spinning . It is looking like real live fascism is coming out of hiding to complete its take over of the former land of the free, home of the brave. Absent a fortuituous meteorite strike, I think we are about to enter the darkest hour in American history.

  121. #121 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1268823863173813

    Some Key Additional Excerpts From Today’s Appeals Court Decision Affirming My Right to Proceed With Defamation Suit Against The Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review

  122. #122 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    THE JUDGE:

    We conclude that Dr. Mann hurdled the Anti-SLAPP statute’s threshold showing of likelihood of success on the merits because the evidence he has presented is legally sufficient to support findings by the fact-finder that statements in Mr. Simberg’s and Mr. Steyn’s articles were defamatory, were published by appellants to a third party without privilege, and were made with actual malice.

  123. #123 Desertphile
    December 22, 2016

    THE JUDGE:

    “22. Moreover, Mr. Simberg cites the CRU emails as proof of Dr. Mann’s deception and academic and scientific misconduct. The assertion that the CRU emails showed or revealed that Dr. Mann engaged in deception and academic and scientific misconduct is not simply a matter of opinion: not only is it capable of being proved true or false, but the evidence of record is that it actually has been proved to be false by four separate investigations. (p.65)

    …. and thus not an issue of discovery.

  124. #124 Julian Frost
    Gauteng North
    December 23, 2016

    Wow @111:

    “They will also argue the statements were protected opinion (not verifiably false).”

    They can’t. That’s been ruled on already.

    RickA @113:

    Nope – you are wrong on this.

    Desertphile @123, quoting the Judge and proving RickA is the wrong one:

    The assertion that the CRU emails showed or revealed that Dr. Mann engaged in deception and academic and scientific misconduct is not simply a matter of opinion: not only is it capable of being proved true or false, but the evidence of record is that it actually has been proved to be false by four separate investigations.

    RickA, you are either extremely ignorant, extremely foolish, extremely dishonest, or some combination of the above.

  125. #125 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Wow #111:

    Nope – you are wrong on this.”

    Nope, you are wrong about that.

    And what happened to “It’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it”? What happened to “We’ll just have to wait and see”? You’re not finally accepting that there IS an objective reality and that opinions CAN be wrong, not merely “your opinion”?

    Nah, only when it suits you do you forget that schtick.

  126. #126 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Legally sufficient to support findings . . .”

    Ah, so when someone is found with a bloody dagger in their hands and a dead body in front of them, who they have said they will kill, this is merely legally sufficient to support findings…

    Retard.

  127. #127 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “What’s he going to ask for? “I want all the emails that implicate you in fraud!” Good luck with that.”

    However, prick won’t let us look through his computer files and home to find evidence of his paedophilia with his 4 year old nephew. Somehow he thinks that this is not allowed by the defendents of his claim of libel when he takes them to court.

    He knows that the fishing doesn’t start for Steyn with Mann. He just doesn’t care that he’s talking bollocks.

  128. #128 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    Prick here also doesn’t seem to accept that Mann can ask Steyn, Simberg, CEI and NRI for all the emails and receipts that incriminate them in fraudulent acts and this libel.

    Which is why they’ve all been so desperate to get this case kicked out before it gets to court.

  129. #129 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    Desertphile #122 quoted:

    “We conclude that Dr. Mann hurdled the Anti-SLAPP statute’s threshold showing of likelihood of success on the merits because the evidence he has presented is legally sufficient to support findings by the fact-finder that statements in Mr. Simberg’s and Mr. Steyn’s articles were defamatory, were published by appellants to a third party without privilege, and were made with actual malice.”

    Yes – this is the Court of Appeals reason for not dismissing the case.

    The “fact-finder” is the jury in the case.

    The “fact-finder” has not found anything yet.

    The evidence is legally sufficient to support findings by the fact-finder means you get to put your case before the jury.

    It is not a statement as to what the jury will find.

    Dr. Mann still has to prove defamation.

    Discovery will still be had on all aspects of the case.

    No discovery is foreclosed because of the denial of the motion to dismiss.

    The denial of the motion to dismiss is not a fact-finding of any kind.

    All the court of appeals is saying is that the evidence is legally sufficient so that a jury could find for plaintiff – so they will not dismiss the case.

    The jury COULD still find for defendants.

    Ask any lawyer.

    Please.

  130. #130 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “The “fact-finder” is the jury in the case.”

    But the court ruled on what is admissable and the emails are NOT.

    Good grief, you’re pathetic.

    PS we need your email accounts to prove you’re a paedo, possibly cannibalistic. We’ll let the jury find the facts, right?

  131. #131 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    Wow #130:

    No – the court has not ruled on what is admissible.

    The court has ruled on a motion to dismiss – affirming the district court’s denial of that motion.

    Everything the lower court and appeals court said was in the context of ruling on the motion to dismiss.

    You are just confused.

    And thats ok – I don’t think you are a lawyer, and this stuff is complicated.

  132. #132 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    No, the court HAS ruled on what is NOT admissable. You’ve been quoted the ruling several times, but not once has it ever sunk in.

    DO try to learn to read, prick. This is pathetic.

  133. #133 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    NRI: We motion this should be dismissed because the CRU emails are evidence that we have reason to believe there’s a fraud!
    Court: Nope, they are not.
    RickA: THIS TOTALLY MEANS THE EMAILS ARE STILL VALID EVIDENCE!!!!

  134. #134 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    RickA

    Legally sufficient to support findings . . .

    That means the jury could find against defendants.

    That is not in question here as I have now told you twice.

    The issue is that until now, you (and others) have argued that Mann would not be able to establish actual malice and so must fail but the court explicitly disagrees with you on this point.

    Please acknowledge that I was correct in questioning your certainty in this matter.

  135. #135 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Ask any lawyer.

    Please.”

    WHY???? It would just be their OPINION, right? I mean, you don’t accept that the statements of experts in a field have anything more than their “opinion” before now.

  136. #136 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “And what happened to ‘It’s your opinion, you’re entitled to it?’ What happened to ‘We’ll just have to wait and see?’ You’re not finally accepting that there IS an objective reality and that opinions CAN be wrong, not merely ‘your opinion?'”

    Heh! The judge’s latest decision should be required reading in public schools. The decision clearly states the laws regarding libel, the First Amendment, and SLAPP laws.

    “Ricka” has constantly stated the laws are the exact opposite of what they are. This suggests he knows what the laws are.

  137. #137 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “Prick here also doesn’t seem to accept that Mann can ask Steyn, Simberg, CEI and NRI for all the emails and receipts that incriminate them in fraudulent acts and this libel.

    “Which is why they’ve all been so desperate to get this case kicked out before it gets to court.”

    The issues regarding emails are two: the plaintiff wants to show that the defendants are the correct ones; emails displaying malicious intent would also be good to have, though three judges have said that burden has already “likely” been met.

    All three judges have applied the Reasonable Man paradigm regarding the issue of malice— they put themselves in the heads of a jury and they all found that a reasonable jury will find in favor of Dr Mann.

    I wonder why the denialists are so enraged and hysterical about the case. It’s almost as if they believe victims of libel and defamation should never defend themselves.

  138. #138 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “Yes – this is the Court of Appeals reason for not dismissing the case. The “fact-finder” is the jury in the case. The “fact-finder” has not found anything yet.”

    All three judges applied the Reasonable Man paradigm. Please find a lawyer to explain that concept to you.

    My offer to pony up, as a wager, US$200 on the outcome of the case still exists; how about you accept it? Mr Laden can be asked to hold the purse. I’ll send the US$200 to him the instant he agrees.

  139. #139 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “PS we need your email accounts to prove you’re a paedo, possibly cannibalistic. We’ll let the jury find the facts, right?”

    Frankly I fail to see why “ricka” has not handed over his emails, passwords, and hard drives—- it’s almost as if he has something to hide. After all, it’s the job of a jury to deceive if “ricka” is a pedo-cannibal.

  140. #140 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “You are just confused. And thats ok – I don’t think you are a lawyer, and this stuff is complicated.”

    But the judges all have concluded the exact opposite of what you claimed they did; the judges all have concluded the laws involved are the exact opposite of what you have claimed they are.

    See the problem now? LOL!

  141. #141 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “No, the court HAS ruled on what is NOT admissable. You’ve been quoted the ruling several times, but not once has it ever sunk in.”

    “Ricka” has consistently stated the exact opposite regarding the laws involved as well as regarding the details of this particular case— without any exception that I have seen or/and are aware of. To me that suggests he does know and understand what the facts are.

  142. #142 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “NRI: We motion this should be dismissed because the CRU emails are evidence that we have reason to believe there’s a fraud!

    Court: Nope, they are not.

    RickA: THIS TOTALLY MEANS THE EMAILS ARE STILL VALID EVIDENCE!!!!”

    His behavior is actually more spooky than that: he insists Dr Mann must produce evidence (in a deposition) showing the defendants are correct in their assertions that Dr Mann did something wrong. Failure to produce that evidence is evidence of a conspiracy, with sinister intent.

    Here in the real world there is nothing at all that Dr Mann can produce that has not already been produced. “Ricka’s” desire to see Dr Mann deposed is just freaky, and contrary to law as well as observed reality.

  143. #143 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “The issue is that until now, you (and others) have argued that Mann would not be able to establish actual malice and so must fail but the court explicitly disagrees with you on this point.”

    Three courts, multiple times each.

    I have US$200 here as a wager that backs the proposition that Dr Mann will prevail and at least 66% of the defendants are found guilty of libel.

  144. #144 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    BBD #134:

    I am sorry – but the Court has not ruled on malice yet.

    That is a fact finding for the jury to make.

    All the court is saying is that sufficient evidence exists so the jury gets to decide whether malice exists or not.

    No finding on malice was made by either the district court or the court of appeals!

    The courts are just analyzing the evidence (what was submitted with the briefing) in the context of deciding if the case should be dismissed or not. They said the case should not be dismissed.

    More evidence will be “discovered” during discovery – including depositions of Dr. Mann (and yes of Mr. Steyn) and others.

    Documents will be produced.

    Interrogatories will be answered.

    No substantive ruling on any aspect of the case has been made yet and will not be made until if and when summary judgment motions are heard and ruled on (or trial happens).

  145. #145 RickA
    December 23, 2016

    Desertphile #143:

    I am happy to take your wager.

    I will even agree to pay you $200 if any of the four defendants is found liable for defamation.

    Either on summary judgment or at trial.

    If the case settles the bet would be off (because the settlement would be confidential and we won’t have any finding on the ultimate issue of defamation).

    Our wager would be just at the trial court level – without regard to what happens on the inevitable appeal (should the matter go to trial).

    Agreed?

  146. #146 RickA
    December 23, 2016

    Desertphile #142:

    If you are interested – I would be willing to make a side wager that Dr. Mann will be deposed by one or more of the defendants.

    Say $200 on that as well?

  147. #147 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “I am sorry – but the Court has not ruled on malice yet.”

    I am sorry: but no one claimed the court had done so.

  148. #148 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    Bloody hell RickA, how disingenously evasive can you get?

    You have always maintained that it wouldn’t be possible to determine actual malice in this case and the court has just contradicted you by allowing the case to proceed on the basis that it *may* be possible to do just that.

    Please will you admit that this demonstrates that you were overconfident (wrong, actually).

  149. #149 SteveP
    December 23, 2016

    This victory won by Mann’s lawyers to keep his case alive is a small bright spot in a world that has taken on a quality of real, lethal, malignant horror. As Trump’s director of African American outreach ,Omarosa Manigault said not too long ago- “Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump. It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.”

    Now THAT is not very comforting.

    But that is where we are. We are living in a science fiction reality now.

    To recap: We are entering through a portal into a world in which president elect lady fingers has somehow triumphed in a “democracy”, aided by a skanky political “deal “ amended into the aMurkan constitution 213 years ago . Do y’all remember that deal our early leaders made, to assuage the outrage of slavers over the fear that “free” voters in Northere states were outvoting them? Yes, the inability of the slave states to translate the stolen voting rights of the slaves into political power gave us the tyrannical Trump electoral malignancy that we are living with today.. So, again, who actually won the civil war?

    I would encourage the STEM and other thinking people in this crowd to take their solace from this brief Mann vs Tyrant victory and then spend some time thinking about things like how to wage successful grass roots political campaigns, how to go under cover, how to live underground, how to recognize friends and foes, how to survive. Read about resistance fighters. Plan. Think..There is much work to do. It is doubtful that the fossilfoolocracy will let their CEI and NR children get significantly punished for spewing hot dehumanizing psychological vitriole at a virtuous human scientist. Even if they lose and have a huge settlement made against them, they do have friends with very deep pockets to help them pay it.

    We have entered a new era where the existing undercurrent of fascism is now out in the open. Mann’s battle is for the freedom to live and conduct science without vicious fascist slander and smear attacks. It is admirable, because he is standing up to sadistic conservative insanity, a towering force of evil in our world. We will probably all have to fight increasingly virulent battles going forward because there isn’t going to be any choice. Really. Is there going to be anything worth living for EXCEPT fighting, in a world where Saddam Trump can molest any person, any idea, any nation, without consequence? He has to be stopped before he divides and immobilizes and neutralizes all of us. And we can use the lessons tought us by the sadistic conservatives in their eight years of vicious assault against a courageous , mild mannered gentleman of color.

    Google “How to fight Trump”. There are some obvious things to start reading right there.

    Oh, and by the way, if we don’t want a dystopian Mad Mac world next year, we better make sure that we remove the son of a bitch through Impeachment early in 2017. It gets much harder to remove him the longer he has power.

  150. #150 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “I am sorry: but no one claimed the court had done so.”

    The court HAS decided that these are not statements protected by the first amendment, and that the emails are not admissable evidence.

    Despite prick here bobbing up with fabricated demands for what we must say has happened (so we can be wrong), he refuses to nod any wink at what we ARE saying.

    Because he’s in the crapper and knows it. Flailing about is all he has left.

    That and his massive kiddie porn collection.

  151. #151 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “The courts are just analyzing the evidence (what was submitted with the briefing) in the context of deciding if the case should be dismissed or not. They said the case should not be dismissed.”

    Because the evidence they gave was not admissable for the purposes the insisted on.

    The court case cannot hang on the emails, these are not admissable in their defence.

  152. #152 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Please will you admit that this demonstrates that you were overconfident (wrong, actually).”

    Of course he can’t, because he’s still of the opinion that he’s right, and even the opinion of reality doesn’t matter to him.

  153. #153 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “His behavior is actually more spooky than that: he insists Dr Mann must produce evidence (in a deposition) showing the defendants are correct in their assertions that Dr Mann did something wrong.”

    Of course, he insists that he doesn’t have to give up his kiddie porn encrypt to show my claims about his sexual abuse of his four-year-old nephew are correct.

    ” Failure to produce that evidence is evidence of a conspiracy, with sinister intent.”

    As is his failure to produce the evidence he’s a long-term kiddiefiddler, a conspiracy with sinister intent!

  154. #154 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Documents will be produced.

    Interrogatories will be answered.”

    And no fishing expeditions, and no irrelevant interrogations. So, since this is a case about whether Steyn et al libeled Mann, only interrogations about how they “knew” that their claims were valid will be acceptable in court.

    If Steyn et al want to go digging through Mann’s data, they can start up a lawsuit against him on that accusation.

  155. #155 Dredd
    https://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2016/12/we-hold-these-truths-to-be-self-evident_23.html
    December 23, 2016

    Global warming induced climate change is real as a matter of law according to the Supreme Court.

    Dr. Mann should not have been libeled for obeying the law (We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident – 2).

  156. #156 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    BBD #148:

    Here is something I told Desertphile in 2015:

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-newest-attack-on-michael-mann-and-the-hockey-stick/#comment-622537

    I have always maintained that I didn’t think Mann would be able to prove malice.

    He still hasn’t.

    Now that the motion to deny has been ruled on and denied (and the denial affirmed) – Mann has a chance to go forward with his case and try to prove to a jury that the defendant’s have defamed him.

    He still has to prove all the elements of defamation – including malice.

    He has not done so yet.

    My opinion was and is that he will not be able to show malice.

    There is no court ruling one way or another on malice – just some analysis about the state of the evidence in the context of deciding whether the case should be dismissed or not..

    The language everybody is fixated on is just legal what if – indicating what a jury COULD find. Not what the jury WILL find.

    Search the ruling for “a jury could” or “capable of” and you will see what I mean.

  157. #157 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    DC CoA ruling p. 105:

    Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of the special motions to dismiss the defamation claims based on those articles and remand the case for additional proceedings in the trial court with respect to these claims.

  158. #158 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    You are still being evasive. It’s abundantly clear that:

    1/ You were grossly overconfident and wrong

    2/ You are too dishonest to admit that you were grossly overconfident and wrong

    Usual crap from you, in other words.

  159. #159 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Usual crap from you, in other words.”

    Weeel, you see, prick can’t admit error, can’t accept anyone’s opinion unless he already thinks it, and hasn’t really got any reality to lean back on, so he HAS to do crap.

    And this situation doesn’t change, so it’s ALWAYS the same crap.

  160. #160 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “I have always maintained that I didn’t think Mann would be able to prove malice.”

    And you continue to claim that he hasn’t. But you don’t have the evidence and you’re not the jury, so you can’t make that claim, can you, you paedo filth.

    You have ALSO maintained that the court has decided nothing on its merits, but you are definitely wrong there. Yet you still maintain it to be true. So you squeal and yell “not decided! Malice!” when nobody claimed that whether it was malice had been judged the case IN A CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN TO REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.

    Do you know why?

    Because Steyn et al don’t want it to go to court and decided, they want it dismissed.

    They failed on that. Because the evidence doesn’t support that claim. A JUDICIAL DECISION ON MERITS.

    And Mann doesn’t want summary judgement for him, because he doesn’t need summary judgement, and Steyn et al will have to open themselves up to contempt charges, AND prove that they based their libel on nothing more than their political hate for AGW science, and that their hate blinded them to all truths that they did not want to believe.

  161. #161 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    Judge: No reasonable man would find these words anything other than malice
    Prick: I still think that it’s not malice!

    Conclusion: the droopy one is unreasonable. According to SEVERAL judges.

  162. #162 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    by clear and convincing evidence

    But rick never reads what judges say. That’s merely their “opinion”. Just ask any lawyer. Please.

  163. #163 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “I have always maintained that I didn’t think Mann would be able to prove malice.”

    Then you’re wrong:

    DC CoA ruling p. 105:

    Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence …that appellants did so with actual malice.

  164. #164 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    You guys are funny.

    You keep quoting language from the ruling without understanding what it means.

    BBD #157 – “for a reasonable jury to find”.

    You do understand that this is hypothetical – that no jury as found anything yet.

    They still have to have the trial before the case gets submitted to a jury.

    The jury can find for Dr. Mann – but the jury could also find for defendants.

    The fact finding has not occurred until the jury tells us one way or another whether Dr. Mann was defamed (which would require a finding of malice).

    But until then – I can neither be right or wrong.

    We have to wait to see.

    Just like with TCR and ECS.

    The jury isn’t in yet.

  165. #165 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    Prick:”Mann will have to prove Steyn’s statement was a statement of fact (and not opinion),”

    Done. See court ruling here.

    “that he was defamed (damaged)”

    Done. See court ruling again.

    ” and that it was made with actual malice. ”

    Done. See court ruling. It’s even been shown you above.

    “None of this has been done”

    Has now.

  166. #166 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “The jury isn’t in yet.”

    Irrelevant. See court ruling.

  167. #167 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “You keep quoting language from the ruling without understanding what [I want to pretend it] means.”

    FTFY.

    YOU keep ignoring the ruling without understanding what it says OR what it actually means.

  168. #168 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “You do understand that this is hypothetical ”

    Hypothetically Steyn could get a corrupt jury.

    Sure.

    So that’s what you’re relying on now? Corruption of the jury system?

  169. #169 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Just like with TCR and ECS.”

    TCR is already in.

    Maths. Learn how to do more than one sum.

  170. #170 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    You do understand that this is hypothetical – that no jury as found anything yet.

    Of course I understand this. Just as I also understand that you were grossly overconfident and wrong in you claim that Mann would not be able to show actual malice. Clearly the CoA does not share your view that this is impossible.

    You are *such* a weasel’s arse.

  171. #171 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    ” Clearly the CoA does not share your view that this is impossible. ”

    And clearly the CoA WAS convinced that there was malice as regards to the claims made against Mann.

    Apparently we’re not allowed to ask a lawyer who
    a) is a judge
    b) has seen the evidence
    when he whines that we need to ask any lawyer.

  172. #172 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    It is mind-boggling what you will deny, RickA.

    So I’m just going to keep on posting it to rub your nose in your own dishonesty until I get bored again:

    DC CoA ruling p. 105:

    Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of the special motions to dismiss the defamation claims based on those articles and remand the case for additional proceedings in the trial court with respect to these claims.

  173. #173 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “I am happy to take your wager. I will even agree to pay you $200 if any of the four defendants is found liable for defamation.”

    Only one? Really? Gosh, you make it too easy.

    I decline your inclusion of the word “liable.” The issue is guilt, not liability.

    The wager: at least one of the defendants will be found guilty of libel.

    If you agree I shall contact Mr Laden and ask if he will hold the purse.

  174. #174 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    I have given you lot all the information I can and you don’t believe me.

    That is your right.

    I am taking a break from this thread for awhile because I am just repeating myself now.

    Perhaps others will weigh in and you will gradually realize that nothing substantive has actually been ruled on by the court – other than that sufficient evidence exists to preclude dismissal of the case.

    Perhaps not.

  175. #175 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    Just like with TCR and ECS.

    No. That’s been dealt with and you can stop fucking well lying about it now.

    Enough.

  176. #176 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “I have given you lot all the information I can and you don’t believe me.”

    That would be because the claims are not supported by reality.

    Hell, we’ve given YOU all the information WE can, and you don’t believe us.

    If the mere act of not believing someone in that case is wrong, then you’re wrong.

  177. #177 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    Perhaps others will weigh in and you will gradually realize that nothing substantive has actually been ruled on by the court

    I understand this and I have repeatedly told you that I understand it. You are simply using this crude evasion to avoid admitting that your vaunted certainty that Mann would not be able to show actual malice was misplaced.

    Now by all means go. Everybody’s had enough of your lies, your dishonesty and your cant.

  178. #178 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “DC CoA ruling p. 105:

    Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice.”

    Heh,. Gosh, that’s really gotta sting a bit.

    That was not the largest hurdle that Dr Mann jumped over; the largest will be finding a reasonable jury. We live in a post-reality world.

  179. #179 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “I am taking a break from this thread for awhile because I am just repeating myself now.”

    Good. We can stop repeating ourselves trying to get you to read what we’re telling you.

    “Perhaps others will weigh in and you will gradually realize that nothing substantive has actually been ruled on by the court”

    Perhaps you will realise, because there’s plenty of us weighing in on this, that you are WRONG.

    Because if several people with the same claim are sufficient to prove a claim, you’re already wrong by your own metric of proof.

    PLENTY has been substantively defined by the court. THAT’S WHY THE COURT WROTE THOSE WORDS. Not just because they get paid by the word, but that they contain the ruling.

    Read it.

  180. #180 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “the largest will be finding a reasonable jury. ”

    The problem is that this is Steyn’s (and prick’s) only hope. A corrupt system giving a hokum verdict.

    But we already know that when there’s what HE considers a hokum verdict (such as, for example, the multiple exonerations of Mann), he won’t accept THAT result.

    The thing is, this court ruling will define what the valid arguments to the jury is, and that’s substantive, despite what the limp defective here claims. And if the defence ignores the court rulings here, they WILL be up for contempt charges, and the lawyers will be up before the bar association looking at suspension and even criminal charges.

  181. #181 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    Hell, the court ruled that Mann wasn’t emotionally distressed, but if he brings it up in court, he too will be smacked down for it. And the deniers will be giggling like four year olds farting in the bath. And screaming about a fit-up if Steyn’s antics get him in the same trouble.

  182. #182 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 23, 2016

    RickA,

    You know, I can’t help but think, reading this thread and assuming that you have a point to make, that either you’re not a very good communicator or you just plain don’t know how to listen. Both of these are skills that any lawyer ought to have in abundance.

  183. #183 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “Of course I understand this. Just as I also understand that you were grossly overconfident and wrong in you claim that Mann would not be able to show actual malice. Clearly the CoA does not share your view that this is impossible.

    You are *such* a weasel’s arse.

    The other two judges agreed. LOL! But gosh, it’s still fun seeing anti-science cultists like “ricka” here holding his anus with both hands as his colon twists and knots.

  184. #184 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “That would be because the claims are not supported by reality.”

    “Ricka” will now insist that reality is wrong.

  185. #185 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “The thing is, this court ruling will define what the valid arguments to the jury is, and that’s substantive, despite what the limp defective here claims. And if the defence ignores the court rulings here, they WILL be up for contempt charges, and the lawyers will be up before the bar association looking at suspension and even criminal charges.”

    The court’s instructions to the jury will be an awesome read; the published decision will also be worthy of citing in the future by lawyers and judges.

    The defendants will become enraged and irate when they finally understand the fact that they helped science and scientists when they tried to harm Dr Mann.

  186. #186 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    ““Ricka” will now insist that reality is wrong.”

    By insisting that it’s just an opinion.

  187. #187 FLwolverine
    Trying to keep grip on reality
    December 23, 2016

    I haven’t read all the comments here. I got through about 80 and then took a break to read the opinion and write this comment (and make soup). If something important has happened in the meantime – like RickA deciding to be not such a PITA (no? didn’t think so) – then I apologize for missing it.

    RickA is right that this decision doesn’t decide the merits of the case: Dr Mann still has to go to trial to prove his claims against Steyn et al. But RickA seems to argue that is the only important thing about this decision, and that’s just wrong.

    First, the First Amendment aspects. The court is answering two important questions about the District of Columbia Anti-SLAPP law, and they have answered them in ways that are beneficial to defendants. (If you don’t like the thought of Steyn et al being benefitted, imagine a lawsuit where, say, Climate Crock or Open Mind is the defendant. The benefits will apply to them too.) A SLAPP case, you’ll remember, is a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” (quoting the opinion, p 19) “filed by one side of a political or public policy debate aimed to punish or prevent the expression of opposing points of view… the goal of a SLAPP “is not to win the lawsuit but to punish the opponent and intimidate them into silence.”

    Anti-SLAPP laws attempt to help defendants protect themselves by, among other things, giving them a special right to ask for dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds that it is, in fact, aimed at punishment rather than justice. In the DC Courts, the statute and previous cases left open these questions: (1) if the defendant loses its motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAP statute, can the defendant appeal immediately, or does it have to wait until the end of the litigation? This is the issue of whether the denial of the motion to dismiss is final or not. (2) what standard must the plaintiff satisfy in order to defeat the defendant’s motion to dismiss?

    Much of the court’s opinion is devoted to these discussions, and one reason it is such heavy reading is that the court lays out all the arguments and precedents and reasoning for its final decision. That’s important because this case will be cited and used as precedent in other Anti-SLAPP cases, both in DC (where many such cases are filed) and in other jurisdictions.

    The court decided (1) yes, the defendant can appeal immediately (you can see where this is crucial in order to keep from being crushed by the costs of going to trial against a well-funded plaintiff); and (2) the standard of review (the standard the plaintiff must meet to defeat a motion to dismiss) is whether a jury properly instructed on the law, including any applicable heightened fault and proof requirements, could reasonably find for the claimant on the evidence presented. (p 5-6 and 44) This is a higher standard than under the usual rules for motions to dismiss: again, it helps the defendant if there is a greater burden placed on plaintiff to prove its lawsuit is NOT intended to stifle dissent or opposition.

    I think both of these decisions strengthen the Anti-SLAPP law and will help those defendants that are being sued in order to shut them up.

    But there’s more ….

  188. #188 FLwolverine
    Apologizing for writing so much
    December 23, 2016

    Second, the DC Court found that Dr Mann had met the higher standard that a plaintiff needs to defeat a motion to dismiss. “Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice.” (p 105)

    That’s good for Dr Mann, but here’s something that may be even better. The Court goes through a detailed and extensive analysis of the evidence provided and how it supports Dr Mann’s claims, with special emphasis on the four investigations that found there had been no fraud, no scientific misconduct, none of the malfeasance the defendants accused him of. “We are struck by the number, extent, and specificity of the investigations, and by the composition of the investigatory bodies.” (p 85) This whole discussion starts at p 54 in the opinion and is quite interesting.

    If I were one of Dr Mann’s lawyers, I would read this as a road map of what the plaintiff needs to show in court to satisfy a jury. And in particular, I would read the court’s emphasis on the four investigations to mean: “Four investigations by reputable scientific institutions have determined that Dr Mann did not commit fraud or scientific misconduct. It is not the court’s or the jury’s duty to re-open those investigations, nor conduct nor permit the defendants to conduct a de novo investigation of Dr Mann’s research. What the defendants must do is demonstrate that they honestly believed – and had good reasons for their belief – that the accusations against Dr Mann were true.” And I think there’s a clear implication that the court, as least, thinks the defendants will have a hard time proving their “honest belief” in the face of the four investigations.

    See the implications for discovery? If the defendants’ burden is to prove that they honestly believed their accusations were true, then what they have to prove is their honest belief; they don’t have to prove the accusations were true. That means IMO that investigations into Mann’s research, emails, etc, are irrelevant – the defendants’ belief was not based on anything hidden in Mann’s files because, obviously, they couldn’t know about such things. Their belief had to be based on what they knew, or had very good reason to suspect, at the time they made the accusations. (An earlier commenter raised this point too.)

    I think it might be possible for Dr Mann to obtain an order preventing defendants’ attempts to probe into those areas, on the grounds that any information obtained is irrelevant to the issues in the case.

    On p 68, the court seems to say that the appellants (CEI and Simberg) are not raising the truth of their accusations as a defense, but I haven’t gone back to the defendants’ pleadings to verify that. But somehow I don’t see the trial court allowing a lot of probing and prying by the defendants to try to prove the “truth” of their accusations, in the face of the four investigations and the appellate court’s strong emphasis on the importance of those investigations.

  189. #189 FLwolverine
    December 23, 2016

    Finally, I want to say that RickA’s statements here about depositions (the deposing party can ask anything and the deponent has to answer) give a rather simplistic view of the discovery process. Depositions occur after several other steps: interrogatories, requests to admit, requests to produce, requests for names of experts and lists of exhibits – and it is possible at all these steps to define issues and define the scope of discovery. It’s true (as trial lawyers like to remind everyone) that broad ranging discovery is favored because it is deemed generally beneficial to the cause of justice, but there are limits, and I think the defendants could very well run up against some limits in this case.

    After this decision by the court (and because of the analysis, not the decision itself), I would think responsible lawyers would counsel reasonable defendants to propose a settlement, rather than risk their own depositions and a negative outcome. But I don’t expect that to happen in this case.

  190. #190 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “““Ricka” will now insist that reality is wrong.”

    By insisting that it’s just an opinion.

    “Observed reality? The jury is still out on that!” — Ricka (paraphrased)

  191. #191 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    😛

  192. #192 FLwolverine
    After reading more comments
    December 23, 2016

    #180 – Wow:

    “The thing is, this court ruling will define what the valid arguments to the jury is, and that’s substantive, despite what the limp defective here claims. And if the defence ignores the court rulings here, they WILL be up for contempt charges, and the lawyers will be up before the bar association looking at suspension and even criminal charges.”

    Not exactly. This decision and order don’t prevent the defendants from making the arguments they’ve already made in their pleadings, as long as those arguments relate to the issues in the case – in other words they can’t keep arguing that the case should have been dismissed under the Anti-SLAPP statute, but they can after the close of discovery bring a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Mann hasn’t proved his case. And the lawyers will not be in contempt unless the trial judge orders them to do or not do something and they refuse to comply with the order. I don’t see anything in the decision for them to violate. But as I argued above (at way too much length probably) the court’s analysis of the evidence is important in other ways.

  193. #193 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Not exactly. ”

    Nothing expressed in a fewer number of words is EVER going to be exactly the same as the thing it’s summarising.

    ” This decision and order don’t prevent the defendants from making the arguments they’ve already made in their pleadings”

    Really?

    “they can after the close of discovery bring a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Mann hasn’t proved his case. ”

    But that isn’t supporting your claim quoted earlier. That’s not a repeat of the arguments they’ve made in these motions.

    However, the judges (all of them, each time) have concluded that the case HAS been made, but they have no jurisdiction to make summary judgement in the case in Michael Mann’s favour.

    And the judges say that no reasonable jury would not accept the case *as defended in these motions* to be anything other than fraudlulent and with malice.

    This isn’t to say that they can’t try, but if they push the emails and say “they show Mann’s a fraud!”, the evidence will be struck down and they need other evidence for that claim. If they try “they are why we thought for real that Mann’s a fraud”, that too has been stricken down.

    But they could try some other evidence for either of those claims.

    So far they’ve shown nothing.

    “And the lawyers will not be in contempt unless the trial judge orders them to do or not do something and they refuse to comply with the order”

    Well, yes, that’s why the contempt was conditional on them ignoring the court.

    Duh.

    ” I don’t see anything in the decision for them to violate.”

    If they try to claim it’s just opinion, that is a violation of the rulings so far. Unless they have other evidence not so far disclosed that would vacate the judge’s ruling. But they can’t insist on Mann being held responsible for them not having it, something NOT in these rulings, but in court proceedings.

    Pretty much, as far as the case of libeling Mann goes, all the judges have said “Well, they’ve shown enough proof for ME, but we don’t have jurisdiction to make summary judgement in Mann’s favour, and we will not void the jury’s right to decide”.

    So like I said, Steyn’s hoping for an unreasonable AND FAVOURABLE TO HIM corrupt jury. It’s pretty much the only way the judges (plural) see this not being a guilty verdict.

  194. #194 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “The court decided (1) yes, the defendant can appeal immediately (you can see where this is crucial in order to keep from being crushed by the costs of going to trial against a well-funded plaintiff)”

    In this case, however, this merely clears the defence of vecatious abuse of the statute.

    100% right, because the statute is important that some wealthy idiot shut down valid accusations. But the other point in the ruling is that BECAUSE this was a removal of the rights to legal redress, the limits to SLAPP MUST be that only patently frivolous lawsuits deserve to be shut down at the earliest possibility, otherwise the cost ruination the statute is to avoid has been nullified.

  195. #195 RickA
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    FLwolverine:

    Thank goodness another lawyer has chimed in.

    Quite a few of the readers here don’t understand the discovery process.

    They believe that because of this ruling that the Defendant’s will not be able to take Dr. Mann’s deposition.

    Of course the defendants will be able to take Dr. Mann’s deposition!

    And they will be allowed to ask questions about the major issue in the case – which is related to Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graphs.

    I also tried (in other older threads) to explain that in a motion to dismiss (this is like a 12(b)(6) motion in this regard) the court has to take everything in the complaint as true and then see whether a claim is stated.

    Here, the question was is there a likelihood of success – and the court discusses in great detail why it could be possible for a jury to find for Dr. Mann.

    But many of the posters here think that Dr. Mann no longer needs to prove the elements of defamation (except for the issue of malice, for some reason).

    I have been trying to convince them (all except BBD who does seem to understand this concept) that none of the courts verbiage means Dr. Mann doesn’t have to prove the various elements of defamation.

    Again – thank you for weighing in.

    It is appreciated.

  196. #196 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    FL Wolverine

    Thanks for the clear summary. Very useful.

    Let’s hope RickA reads you carefully and recognises my argument in what you say. Specifically:

    What the defendants must do is demonstrate that they honestly believed – and had good reasons for their belief – that the accusations against Dr Mann were true.” And I think there’s a clear implication that the court, as least, thinks the defendants will have a hard time proving their “honest belief” in the face of the four investigations.

    Unfortunately, I think RickA was deliberately missing the point and pretending that this was about something else in order to avoid having to admit that his standard claims about the insuperable difficulty of establishing actual malice were wrong.

  197. #197 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Unless they have other evidence not so far disclosed that would vacate the judge’s ruling.”

    It would also be “valid” if they had other evidence not so far disclosed that would not vacate the judge’s ruling, but they would still have to pass the hurdle of the reasonable man proposition.

  198. #198 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    RickA

    I have been trying to convince them (all except BBD who does seem to understand this concept) that none of the courts verbiage means Dr. Mann doesn’t have to prove the various elements of defamation.

    See #196.

    Again – thank you for weighing in.

    It is appreciated.

    FLW by no means provides a blanket endorsement of your claims. You seem not to have read what he wrote carefully enough.

  199. #199 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Let’s hope RickA reads you carefully ”

    ‘course he didn’t.

    He just read what we wrote and he ignored, and checked out bits that supported him, even if that requires “selective quoting” to do so.

    And, of course, he’s not going to accept the conclusion FL put forward, because it isn’t what he wants to accept.

  200. #200 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “And they will be allowed to ask questions about the major issue in the case – which is related to Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graphs.”

    No they won’t. See FL’s comment:

    That means IMO that investigations into Mann’s research, emails, etc, are irrelevant – the defendants’ belief was not based on anything hidden in Mann’s files because, obviously, they couldn’t know about such things. Their belief had to be based on what they knew, or had very good reason to suspect, at the time they made the accusations. (An earlier commenter raised this point too.).

    NB: I was that earlier commenter, though someone else may also have pointed it out. But, hey, you didn’t read it when I said it, so why should we expect you to read it this time, even with a “much appreciated” reverse ad-hom.

  201. #201 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “But many of the posters here think that Dr. Mann no longer needs to prove the elements of defamation”

    Nobody does.

    The closest is that we have evidence (proof in a court sense) that he has proven his case.

    You know, THE WORDS OF THE FRIGGING JUDGES.

  202. #202 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “Thank goodness another lawyer has chimed in.”

    You mean “the first lawyer.” I do not recall any other lawyer posting comments here.

  203. #203 John Mashey
    December 23, 2016

    I’ve read the case, and this tweet thread doesn’t bear directly on it, but people may find interesting history on CEI and NR, jsut to help calibrate their long-term behavior.

  204. #204 RickR
    United Statesp
    December 23, 2016

    Re #203

    It seems that the reference to Jonathan Adler was prompted by this:
    Making Defamation Law Great Again: Michael Mann’s suit may continue In part:

    Nor is it consistent with existing First Amendment doctrine to suggest that hyperbolic accusations of bad faith or dishonesty against public figures involved in policy debates are actionable.

    And the National Review has responded In part:

    In refusing to dismiss these claims, the opinion is badly mistaken. Worse, it represents an unprecedented threat to the freedom of speech in our nation’s capital. There’s a reason that a broad coalition of groups including the ACLU, the Washington Post, the Cato Institute, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed briefs in support of NR in the case.

  205. #205 RickR
    United States
    December 23, 2016

    Looks like my second blockquote tag didn’t work right.

  206. #206 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Worse, it represents an unprecedented threat to the freedom of speech in our nation’s capital. ”

    No it doesn’t.

    “I WANT TO TALK BOLLOCKS AND RUIN YOUR CAREEER!!!!!” is NOT free goddamned speech.

    “There’s a reason that a broad coalition of groups including the ACLU, the Washington Post, the Cato Institute, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed briefs in support of NR in the case”

    Because there’s a constitutional right to libel? Or is it because they want to talk any old bollocks about anyone and anything, whether real or not, and not care about the consequences?

  207. #207 SteveP
    Off on a tangent. Again
    December 23, 2016

    That whole conservative thang. Shut up and let me exploit/abuse/enslave/addict/ hurt you . Because I can.

    The conservative case against Michael Mann first got serious when the fossil fool industry used Russian hackers in an attempt to do a fascicst smear on him, resulting in climategate, and unleashing a continuous stream of attack dogs on Mann, with Simberg and Steyn being only some of the more recent and more stupid of that slobbering pack.. And do you remember when Va . AG Ken Cuccinelli , THE THIRD ( they spelled Turd wrong) , whose father just happened to be in some kind of lobbying relationship with Ruskie fossil fool interests, launched an attack on Mann. And then, to cap it off, we are aboutt to be “led” by a spittle mouthed, little fingered vulgarian who is in league with the Russians,….. who are the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas.

    I don’t know. This is not looking good. It looks like the world’s fossil fools have conspired to finish their take over of our planet. I mean, they’ve always pretty much owned the modern world, but now they just aren’t hiding it any more.

    So,it certainly looks like a measured, orderly transition from fossil fuels to cleaner, non-civilization destroying energy sources isn’t going to happen next year. Dang. I just so had my hopes up. Maybe the year after that.

  208. #208 FLwolverine
    Back at the computer
    December 23, 2016

    #204 – RickA –
    “And the National Review has responded In part:
    In refusing to dismiss these claims, the opinion is badly mistaken. Worse, it represents an unprecedented threat to the freedom of speech in our nation’s capital. There’s a reason that a broad coalition of groups including the ACLU, the Washington Post, the Cato Institute, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed briefs in support of NR in the case.”

    I disagree. These groups were IMO much more interested in the specific Anti-SLAP law questions: what standard does the plaintiff have to meet to defeat an anti-SLAP motion to dismiss? and can the defendant take an interlocutory appeal if it loses the motion to dismiss? These groups are probably don’t care much about the merits of the case (except to the extent they recognize what scuzzballs Steyn and the National Review are).

  209. #209 BBD
    December 23, 2016

    If contrarians want to be contrarian on the record, then they should stick to scientific arguments. When they resort to smear campaigns, *they* open the door to litigation.

    When they get sued for going too far, it is not an ‘unprecedented threat to the freedom of speech’. It is a consequence of their own actions.

    Freedom of speech arguments in this context are nothing more than playing the victim.

    The *victim* is Mann.

  210. #210 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “These groups are probably don’t care much about the merits of the case”

    We have no idea who or why they signed up. There’s nothing about the amicus brief for the NRI on the EFF site anywhere in the search, so it’s really hard to work out who in the EFF said the EFF was a friend of the court on this (and whether they had the right to do so), and under what pretense this offer was accepted for.

  211. #211 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “Ricka” isn’t the only hysterical paranoid conspiracy alarmist who is still trying to claim the issue is about “freedom to speech.” The day’s denialosphere has been crammed full of “BUT FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!!!“11one” wailing and raving.

    The demonstrable fact is that the defendants tried to silence Dr Mann free speech, and by extension all scientists who will report the inconvenient facts,

  212. #212 FLwolverine
    December 23, 2016

    #193 – Wow –

    I think you are reading too much into this opinion and order. Courts speak through their orders – in this case that’s the single paragraph on the page labeled “judgment”. The rest of the opinion is background and supporting arguments and reasoning. That’s all important, very important for future cases, but the actual orders – what the lower court and the parties and attorneys have to do – are in that paragraph.

    So the court did not limit the parties’ arguments or evidence except (1) they can’t argue that the case should be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute because that’s been decided; (2) Mann can’t argue about emotional distress because that claim has been dismissed.

    The defendants can bring a motion to dismiss after the close of discovery. The motion is under a difference rule (not the anti-SLAPP statute) and is based on a different argument, i.e., we have all this information and evidence from the plaintiff and he hasn’t proven his case.

    No, the judges have not concluded the case has been made. They concluded that Mann met the standard to survive an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. They made a very strong argument about why he met that standard, and IMO they sent a strong message to the parties and the trial judge about the strength of Mann’s evidence and the weakness of the defendants’ position. But they did not decide the case – you are right that they can’t do that in this particular proceeding. Maybe they’re hinting that Mann should bring a motion for summary disposition in the trial court, but I would go so far as to say that.

    No, the judges did not say that “no reasonable jury would accept the case” – I guess you mean no reasonable jury would interpret this other than we (the judges) do. No, they didn’t say that – they said repeatedly that “a reasonable jury could” interpret it in a certain way.

    No, arguments about the emails will not necessarily be “struck down”. There’s nothing in the opinion that says the defendants cannot make this argument to the jury. What the opinion does do (and this is my reading, not a dispositive interpretation) is suggest arguments Mann can use to try to restrict discovery and discussion of the email controversy. The appellate court thinks that issue has been resolved; it may be signaling to the defendants that they can’t rely on that argument, but they are not prohibiting them from making the argument and trying to persuade the jury that there’s something there.

    “If they (defendants) try to claim it’s (the articles) are just opinion, that is a violation of the rulings so far.” No, it isn’t. The court’s decision does not resolve the question of whether the defendants statements are just opinion or not. The appellate court concluded – on the evidence they saw – that the statements are not just opinion. But that conclusion is not binding on the trial judge or the jury because it isn’t an order; it’s not a resolution of the merits of the case; it’s an interim conclusion, based only on the evidence in front of them , that Mann had presented enough evidence to show the statements are not just opinion.

    “They can’t insist on Mann being held responsible for them not having (other evidence).” I’m sorry, but tI don’t understand this sentence. There’s no context/format in which they could “insist on Mann be held responsible” because they (defendants) didn’t present evidence. Maybe you mean they can’t complain about losing when they didn’t present evidence. That’s true, but on the other hand, they weren’t required to present all their evidence in the anti-SLAPP action, and they still have a chance to present any evidence they have at trial (if the case goes that far).

    “all the judges have said “Well, they’ve shown enough proof for ME”. They may be implying that (and I tend to think they are) but all they can do in this context (as I think you recognize) is say that they will let the case go forward.

  213. #213 FLwolverine
    December 23, 2016

    #211 – Desertphile – yes, their heads would probably explode if anyone pointed out that this decision was actually a victory for Free Speech because it makes it harder for a malicious plaintiff to try to shut down someone up. It just so happens in the Mann suit that the defendants couldn’t prove they deserved anti-SLAPP protection.

  214. #214 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “So the court did not limit the parties’ arguments or evidence except (1) they can’t argue that the case should be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute because that’s been decided;”

    And the METHOD by which that has been decided was

    a) It’s not opinion, it’s based on provable fact.
    b) The provable fact was the CRU emails
    c) The CRU emails do not support the claim

    Ergo, “It’s just our opinion, based on the CRU emails showing Mann was fraudulent” is decided: NO WAY JOSE.

    If this were not possible to be the case, then the decision is meaningless. UTTERLY meaningless.

    This would be rather extraordinary for a judge to make a decision that is so utterly meaningles and a waste of time and effort.

    So I need far more than “I think you’re reading too much into the order”.

    ““all the judges have said “Well, they’ve shown enough proof for ME”. They may be implying that”

    No, they are saying that. Not in those words, they’ve been quoted by several people already, but they state categorically that it’s proven or certain or passed the hurdle of preponderance of the evidence.

    The only thing saying that they’re not deciding summarily to award a guilty verdict is because they do not have jurisdiction or discretion to bypass a jury.

    That’s all.

  215. #215 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “No, the judges did not say that “no reasonable jury would accept the case” – I guess you mean no reasonable jury would interpret this other than we (the judges) do. ”

    Neither did I.

    And the judges say that no reasonable jury would not accept the case *as defended in these motions* to be anything other than fraudlulent and with malice.

    But if you want their actual words:

    ***Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence*** for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, ****by clear and convincing evidence***, that appellants did so with actual malice.

  216. #216 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    ““They can’t insist on Mann being held responsible for them not having (other evidence).” I’m sorry, but tI don’t understand this sentence.”

    Steyn: Give us all your emails.
    Mann: They are irrelevant.
    Steyn: Judge, Mann is refusing to give us the evidence that he’s a fraud!

    Steyn blaming Mann for him not having the evidence of Mann being a fraud.

  217. #217 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    Steyn blaming Mann for him[Steyn] not having the evidence of Mann being a fraud.

  218. #218 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    Re: ***by clear and convincing evidence***, that appellants did so with actual malice

    Judge Greene ruled that discovery would likely prove actual malice.

    Seems like whatever arguments were put forward this time showed actual malice.

    One reason why Steyn et al didn’t want this to continue, but be dismissed early. Steyn, however, is currently having to use this to plead for cash money off people to “help protect the first amendment” (but surely this is irrelevant, since Mann isn’t the government, right?), and he only gets that cash because he keeps telling the gullible punters he will never give up and settle out of court. If he ever did that, he’d lose any chance of further bilking of the crowd. When he fails, he can just claim it was all a set-up job and continue to get donations.

  219. #219 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “Maybe you mean they can’t complain about losing when they didn’t present evidence. That’s true, but on the other hand, they weren’t required to present all their evidence in the anti-SLAPP action, and they still have a chance to present any evidence they have at trial ”

    And that’s what I said in #194, for example (but several other times): “Unless they have other evidence not so far disclosed that would vacate the judge’s ruling.”

  220. #220 FLwolverine
    December 23, 2016

    #204 – Wow –

    Moyhu has links to PDFs of all the pleadings.
    https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/02/links-for-mann-legal-matters.html
    I couldn’t access the ACLU brief fir some reason, but the ones from the “media” (20 organizations) and the District of Columbia are both about the immediate review question. Despite the way denier blogs have characterized these briefs, the people submitting them do not take any position on the issues. Actually these groups should be pleased with the decision – it granted the right of immediate review and also set a higher standard for the plaintiff to meet.

  221. #221 SteveP
    December 23, 2016

    Rich Lowry, NR editor , in his response to Mann’s threat to sue him….”we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated
    reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.” So he is threatening Mann that he will harass him further if he doesn’t stand down. The old conservative mantra…..”Shut up and let me exploit/abuse/enslave/addict/ hurt/harass you . Because I can.”

    I think that Mann probably got fed up with the fossil people who were orchestrating the climategate hack, and with the Ken Cuccinnelli (the Turd fossil ) attack, and he saw the Simberg Steyn attack as a very stupid exposure , and he took advantage of it to punch back. I can’t say whether or not this was the best time to strike back, but I am glad that he took a stand.

    But as we extrapolate forward, let us remember that there is an army of mis-informed people, our neighbors, living next to us, and we all will soon have a pudgy fingered sociopath for a leader. Mann’s fight may soon be all of ours.

  222. #222 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    That admission could be very bad for NRI, since it constitutes deliberate stalking, which could even be a criminal act, though not much of one for jail time, and opening up the journalist to action by the professional body. Not to mention a serious cashflow for Michael Mann to live luxuriously on.

  223. #223 FLwolverine
    December 23, 2016

    #219 – Wow – I think we’re agreeing on something here here, but “vacate the judges’ order” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. The order is only about the right of immediate appeal and the standard of proof and dismissing one count of the complaint. There is nothing either party or the trial court can do that vacates (i.e., voids) that order. Only the court that issued the order or a higher court can do that. It doesn’t matter to the effectiveness of the order whether or what evidence the defendants present.

  224. #224 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “but “vacate the judges’ order” doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means”

    Well, fair enough, but you understood the meaning.

    If they produce evidence that would have changed the judge’s decision if they had bothered to give it, then this could cause a not guilty verdict.

    The judge would probably be very pissed off if they’d had it all along, though.

    And it’s one HELL of a big supposition. You’d be better off supposing that Mann’s legal team all get caught in the worst traffic jam in history and are unable to make the court date.

  225. #225 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    “The order is only about the right of immediate appeal and the standard of proof and dismissing one count of the complaint. ”

    And the dismissal was based on court findings. Much like any case law for a court case.

    the findings being, for example, that “The CRU emails give us enough evidence for us to believe that Mann is a fraud!” is not true.

    A court decision STILL has an effect.

    Hell, it’s the same effect that this decision has that the Anti-SLAPP provisions have certain inherent meanings that expand and firm up the meanings of certain terms in the act.

    The court STILL decided on what the facts of evidence were.

    It’s up to the jury to weigh the evidence that is valid and listen to the arguments to reach the verdict.

  226. #226 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    #220, FLW, I;ve read the amicus brief that the EFF were said to be a party to, but the only names were the ones required to identify the case details, and the names of the solicitors that wrote it for the NRI.

    The EFF as the institution was named, but no statement from them was included, and no name from the EFF was given. And the EFF don’t appear to have anything about it on their site.

    The EFF may not have known what the case was, but was told it was about free speech first amendment rights for reporters to ask questions about public figures’ honesty. Which is “sort of” what the NRI think it is, but the documentation and claims in the court filings show is rather different.

    Same for ACLU.

    The union for journalists are there not to protect first amendment, but to protect their members. That’s their job, so I’m not knocking them, but it’s not support or even inference of support for this being about the first amendment and free speech being quashed in the USA.

  227. #227 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “Steyn blaming Mann for him not having the evidence of Mann being a fraud.”

    In fact that’s the most amusing part: Dr Mann cannot produce any evidence showing he did anything wrong, therefore he’s guilty; if he was not guilty, why would he be hiding the evidence of his guilt?

  228. #228 Desertphile
    December 23, 2016

    “If he ever did that, he’d lose any chance of further bilking of the crowd. When he fails, he can just claim it was all a set-up job and continue to get donations.”

    That reminds me; how are sales of Steyn’s libelous book going? Seems to me Dr Mann should be given what little money the book has brought in.

  229. #229 Wow
    December 23, 2016

    #227, the other point being that Steyn hasn’t got the evidence because Mann hasn’t given over the evidence, therefore its not Steyn’s fault he’s in reckless disregard of the truth, it’s Mann’s fault, ergo Steyn should be found not guilty.

    Or at least that’s what Steyn would try… then again, he’s a nutter.

  230. #230 StevoR
    Reality as scientifically observed
    December 23, 2016

    Michael Mann wins court decision

    YES! 🙂

    Good. Nice to know and see truth prevail.

  231. #231 RickA
    United States
    December 24, 2016

    Merry Christmas everybody!

    Have a great weekend.

  232. #232 RickR
    United States
    December 24, 2016

    RickA-

    Thanks. And a Merry Christmas to you.

  233. #233 BBD
    December 24, 2016

    Right, no false balance here.

    I’ve had vicious disagreements with Wow *and* with RickA and I would like to wish them both, sincerely, a Happy Christmas.

    And everybody else, of course.

    Normal service will be resumed in 24 hours 🙂

  234. #234 Wow
    December 24, 2016

    Thing is, despite our disagreements, we know that such well wishing is right, because we can accept we’re wrong, even when we’re certain we’re not, because we have evidence for it and have looked at *and found wanting for reason*, Whereas the likes of rick here is just playing up to the crowd and has no real well wishing, because he never even cares what is said.

    Indeed, between even us two, our anger and frustration in arguments is based on knowing that it’s actually possible to get the other one to see what we do, and it’s a shame to us we can’t find that way.

    And wonder if that means we’re actually wrong.

    Personally, though, i don’t do the “Christmas well wishing” because I genuinely think the same thing about humanity at any time of the year. So making it a christmas issue seems to lessen the thought.

    But that’s just me.

  235. #235 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2016

    Y’all have a Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year, too!

  236. #236 MikeN
    December 24, 2016

    FL Wolverine, Wow, the media organizations in their brief say that they are mostly opposed on the policy issues, but that they are filing on behalf of the idea that reports by government organizations should not be used as a means to bring libel actions and silence critics. Of course they focused on other aspects of SLAPP law, since they can’t get to the motion to dismiss if the court has no jurisdiction.

  237. #237 Brainstorms
    December 24, 2016

    Mann doesn’t/hasn’t worked for a “government organization”, he’s an academic at Penn State, so that has nothing to do with this case.

    Mann is suing to prevent his critics from attempts to silence him through the means of publicly discrediting him.

    Everyone who values free speech should be supporting Mann in his case, and supporting in general the right for scientists to report their findings to those who make public policy, even if — and especially when — their findings are unwelcome and inconvenient — without being harassed and defamed for no valid reason.

  238. #238 de
    United States
    December 24, 2016

  239. #239 de
    December 24, 2016

    Sorry folks: my poor motor skills added to a stiff scotch in celebration of a son’s engagement equals “de” rather than “dean” in #238

  240. #240 Wow
    December 25, 2016

    MikeN, ANY court proceeding has to go through the courts. Are you saying that it would be fine if only Mann took the law into his own hands and dealt with this vigilante style?

    Because, as I said earlier, and brainstorms said again, Mann is not the government, and no government agency is suing any of these arrogant and vicious morons in court.

    If libel can’t be answered by going through the courts, what do you suggest? Execution of the libellers?

  241. #241 Wow
    December 25, 2016

    “the idea that reports by government organizations should not be used as a means to bring libel actions and silence critics”

    So why have there been multiple congressional hearings into climate scientists’ work, and calls from those insisting that it’s a scam to do so again?

    Because, and you may not have realist this, congress is a government organisation. And if their results can’t be used to silence critics saying that AGW is real, then what is the goddamned point of it???

    Pork for congresscritters to sit on committees and get bonuses?

  242. #242 Desertphile
    December 25, 2016

    “…. should not be used as a means to bring libel actions and silence critics.”

    As soon as you see someone do that, be sure to complain to someone, m’kay? Thanks.

  243. #243 Desertphile
    December 25, 2016

    “If libel can’t be answered by going through the courts, what do you suggest? Execution of the libellers?”

    That’s a great idea! I think Trump should be informed. Deregulate defamation! Deregulate abusing people!

  244. #244 Desertphile
    December 25, 2016

    Also, now that I’m at it. I am a firm believer in deregulating banks. I mean remove the regulations against us robbing them.

  245. #245 Brainstorms
    December 25, 2016

    Why not? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

    Corporations : Regulations :: Citizens : Municipal Laws

    Ergo, if it’s best to eliminate corporate regulations, then it must be best to eliminate municipal laws that are impeding citizens from doing what comes naturally to them.

    Such as stealing, murdering, child abuse, etc.

    Right?

  246. #246 Wow
    December 25, 2016

    Dunno about the murder and abuse, but if I need a new pair of shoes, surely the government shouldn’t be forcing me to give up MY money at the point of a GUN! I mean, that’s just taxation, and, unless I have a position on the board of that business, WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

    I believe it’s considered an bad thing in the USA.

  247. #247 Wow
    December 25, 2016

    Dunno about the murder and abuse, but if I need a new pair of shoes, surely the government shouldn’t be forcing me to give up MY money at the point of a GUN! I mean, that’s just taxation, and, unless I have a position on the board of that business, WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

  248. #248 Brainstorms
    December 25, 2016

    I was thinking more along the lines of burglary, rather than thievery. Things like financial corporations that come up with clever ways to perpetrate white collar crimes to “tax” everyone’s pensions and 401(k) accounts — without representation. (Think they’ll ever put YOU on the board? Ha!)

    Why resort to what’s relatively “petty theft” by robbing banks, when you can *be* the bank and execute grand theft by robbing the bank’s clients instead? And *glory!* do it under the cover of a corporation, which in America is (get this!) a *person*, hence you’re in the clear, because the *bank* is the one responsible. (You get away with the cash, leaving the bank “holding the bag”.)

    After all, as Willie Sutton famously pointed out, if banks are where the money is, where’s that money coming from? Cut out the middle man and rob the depositors instead !

    …unless, of course, banking regulations get in your way. Natch.

  249. #249 MikeN
    December 26, 2016

    Mann is not a government organization. The court ruling argues that investigations by Penn State, NSF, EPA, Parliament, and others mean a case of libel against Mann can proceed.
    The media organizations argue that such a ruling would allow for people to be at risk of libel for disagreeing with government reports.

  250. #250 Desertphile
    December 26, 2016

    The media organizations argue that such a ruling would allow for people to be at risk of libel for disagreeing with government reports.

    Indeed, it was not only media who made that mistake; even the Electronic Freedom Foundation rushed to comment without understanding the case. I suspect they all feel foolish for doing so.

  251. #251 Wow
    December 26, 2016

    “The court ruling argues that investigations by Penn State, NSF, EPA, Parliament, and others mean a case of libel against Mann can proceed.”

    Those investigations found no evidence of fraud. That is what they looked for. Why is their result ineligible because they’re official (but not government for some) institutions? Is evidence and conclusion by a body inadmissable as evidence?

    Are you saying that if they had found Mann guilty of fraud, that this could not be used to allow a case against Mann for fraud to go ahead? Because that would be the result of your assertion here. But I suspect you’d be absolutely fine with using the investigations results in court if they decided THAT, because you just want climate scientists who show AGW is real silenced.

    If this court comes to a conclusion that Steyn is guilty, should this not be used as evidence in any future investigations into libel? Because that would undo the ruling of this court judge that Mann hasn’t found proof enough to proceed with his claims of distress and anguish.

    Because, and this may shock you to the core, the court IS A GOVERNMENT BODY.

  252. #252 John Mashey
    December 26, 2016

    1) As described in Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony, and Strange scholarship in the Wegman report, various climate anti-science groups manufactured endless attacks.over years, of which those on Mann were just one manifestation, involving fraudulent statistics (I’ve looked at the code) and fraudulent report/hearing for Congerss.

    2) Over various years, they *demanded* reviews by universities / government bodies, which wouldn’t have happened except for the demands. AS an example, see See No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Others about GMU, but pp.67-68 contrast their handling of Wegman/Said complaints with other 2 other cases, including Mann at PSU.

    3) So, complaints that Mann got backed by government reports are akin to comment by A. Lincoln:
    “Hypocrite: The man who murdered his parents, and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.”

  253. #253 Wow
    December 26, 2016

    “The media organizations argue that such a ruling would allow for people to be at risk of libel for disagreeing with government reports.”

    The problem with that claim,Mike, is that this isn’t about disagreeing with the reports. Libel is not “Disagree with someone”, it’s got a VERY specific meaning.

    And it’s not a claim on the report, but on Mann himself. So that’s two problems.

    And why should government reports be unprotected when non government reports are protected? Because if both are unprotected, then there’s no libel laws, and no truth in advertising laws, either. You would be able to make up any old crap to shit on your competitor’s products and put people off. And if the competitor complains that you’ve lied and damaged their reputation and revenues, you would be saying that this would stop people criticising products!

    Three problems, now, though that last one is more a “please explain more”. I’ve just posed one about equal lack of protection leading to problems.

  254. #254 Wow
    December 26, 2016

    “The media organizations argue that such a ruling would allow for people to be at risk of libel for disagreeing with government reports”

    plus citation plz.

  255. #255 Brainstorms
    December 26, 2016

    People would ONLY be at risk of libel for disagreeing with reports (govt or otherwise), IF their “disagreement” was transmogrified into FALSE accusations and claims of improprieties, illegalities, and frauds, which were designed and couched so as to commit character assassination against the authors — a malicious attempt at discrediting them and their reports because of this hypothetical “disagreement”.

    You DO see the difference between “I disagree” and “I’m going to smear your reputation and destroy your career to shut you up”, don’t you, MikeN? Check out the 9th Commandment given to Moses. Hint: Has nothing to do with not liking what your neighbor says.

    However, it does have quite a bit to do with suppressing the right of free speech of your neighbor with whom you “disagree”. And attempting to stifle your neighbor by libeling him is a crime in this country.

    Any and every media organization concerned about preserving the rights of free speech should be rallying behind Mann to make sure his rights aren’t being infringed. What Steyn, et. al, did does not qualify as “free speech” any more than committing perjury in court does.

    P.S. The court ruling says that a case of libel BY Mann (against those attempting to stifle his free speech) can proceed.

  256. #256 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    Brainstorms, perhaps you have the right wording, but I considered “a case of libel BY Mann” to mean Mann has committed the libel and changed it.

  257. #257 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    Various groups have conducted investigations, and found no evidence of fraud by Mann. Others disagree with the investigations, and believe Mann has committed fraud, and declare so, or perhaps that the investigations are frauds. On the basis of the investigations, the court has declared that to say Mann has committed fraud is defamation and cannot be allowed. Someone could have a different interpretation of the facts, a different standard for what constitutes fraud, etc.
    The media organizations are not concerned with Mann, but the precedent that a judgment by one group can make certain individuals and companies above criticism.
    Say someone wants to accuse Apple of child labor, and Apple files a defamation suit citing a Chinese government investigation into Foxconn that found no evidence of child labor.

  258. #258 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    And child labor is a more specific allegation than ‘fraudulent’.

  259. #259 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    ““a case of libel BY Mann” to mean Mann has committed the libel and changed it.”

    A case of libel, brought by Mann. I mean, it’s even up at the tiop there, and it’s not like the news hasn’t explained this for anyone who has heard of the ACLU signing an amicus brief.

    So quite why you wanted to tell everyone you were clueless and must have heard about the ACLU from some other half-remembered source you couldn’t bother to re-read escapes everyone here.

  260. #260 RickA
    United States
    December 27, 2016

    MikeN #257:

    You said (in part) that ” the court has declared that to say Mann has committed fraud is defamation and cannot be allowed.”

    I don’t think this is technically correct.

    While the court certainly did affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss, and discussed the evidence in the context of making that ruling – the court did not DECLARE anything.

    In the sense that the issues of fact will be submitted to a jury (or perhaps could be decide on summary judgement if no genuine issue of material fact exists).

    We don’t know what the jury will decide.

    They may DECLARE Mann has proven defamation.

    Or they may DECLARE that Mann has not proven defamation.

    We will have to wait to see what the jury decides.

  261. #261 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “Others disagree with the investigations”

    Irrelevant.

    Their disagreement doesn’t dissipate the facts found. It only tells us “others” have disagreed with the conclusion. Based on no facts. Or facts they’ve kept hidden from every investigation. I mean, it’s not like they were secret off-the-cuff events.

    “On the basis of the investigations, the court has declared that to say Mann has committed fraud is defamation and cannot be allowed. ”

    Ah, I see. You are confused because you are running the entire system through your own mind, and ignoring reality.

    No.

    The case is actionable because it’s a statement that is libelous. If you insist otherwise, then you are insisting that the entirety of libel law is wrong.

    The investigations show that the claims were statements as of facts and therefore provably wrong. Which means NOT MERELY OPINION.

    NO MATTER what YOU say.

    If they are provable, then the evidence has to be passed on to a judge and jury to determine if guilt has been found.

    Don’t like it? Scrap the justice system and just make shit up about guilt or innocence depending on your feelings on the subject.

    This WILL require you to set up your own country.

    “Someone could have a different interpretation of the facts”

    PERMANENTLY TRUE. Therefore you cannot base a justice system on this.

    ” but the precedent that a judgment by one group can make certain individuals and companies above criticism.”

    They don’t. Feel free to criticise. Just don’t libel.

    And aren’t you telling everyone here that Steyn, Simburg, CEI and NRI are above criticism??? That’s what Mann is doing here:criticising them for libelous statements against him. For which he can ask for justice in a court of law.

    According to you, he can’t because that means you don’t like libel laws applied to those people and companies.

    We have noted that you’ve stopped claiming that this is a government institution. You haven’t changed your claims and complaint, though, proving your earlier “justification” was no such thing, merely an excuse for what you wish to hold to.

  262. #262 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    > Is evidence and conclusion by a body inadmissable as evidence?

    Of course it is admissible as evidence. But it shouldn’t be conclusive to the point where alternate views cannot be expressed. Why is their conclusion so definitive? ‘They found no evidence’ is not the same as ‘evidence does not exist’.

    “Are you saying that if they had found Mann guilty of fraud, that this could not be used to allow a case against Mann for fraud to go ahead?”
    Well if they had found fraud, that would be even more evidence that the case of libel should be thrown out(though incidentally CEI’s post never says ‘fraud’). A case against Mann for fraud could also go forward, with this as evidence. If Mann were on criminal trial for fraud, then of course the reports would be evidence in his favor. The issue is whether they are relevant to a case for defamation, where someone disagrees with the investigations, or feels they were a whitewash. Incidentally, CEI DOES use a government investigation in their case against Mann, citing EPA’s defense of Mann for saying that McIntyre has engaged in ‘pure scientific fraud’ as not defamation.

    >because you just want climate scientists who show AGW is real silenced.
    Why would I want that? Let them make their case fairly, rather than sending people to court who disagree with their statements. That does not look like a case of a someone who has a strong case, that they feel they should go to court to silence critics.

  263. #263 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “And child labor is a more specific allegation than ‘fraudulent’.”

    Who cares.

    Child sex slave trafficking to Afghan is a more specific allegation than “fraudulent”.

    Therefore you’re wrong?

  264. #264 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “But it shouldn’t be conclusive to the point where alternate views cannot be expressed. ”

    Uh, this wasn’t about “alternate views” being “expressed”.

    This was libelous claims made.

    That;s against the law.

    Are you saying that some people should be above the law?

  265. #265 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “We don’t know what the jury will decide.

    They may DECLARE Mann has proven defamation.

    Or they may DECLARE that Mann has not proven defamation.”

    But proven defamation has been said by every judge who has seen the evidence presented by both sides to them as having been done.

    Therefore we can say that the chances of either case are not 50:50.

    After all, Steyn could get the Mafia to hold the families of the jury hostage to a not guilty verdict. Or just pay them off. Or Doxx them to the rabid deniers as “part of the NWO that has cost them their jobs and chance at heaven” and hope that with enough fruitcake declamations, SOMEONE will knock them off before a verdict can be reached.

  266. #266 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    RickA, you are correct the case has not been decided, but it would be the same logic for why Mann should not win at trial, and the SLAPP law is designed to protect people from being sued for libel on matters of public policy. The media argument is that a victory by Mann would result in forcing media to accept government reports on pain of libel.

  267. #267 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    RickA, you are correct the case has not been decided, but it would be the same logic for why Mann should not win at trial, and the SLAPP law is designed to protect people from being sued for libel on matters of public policy. The media argument is that a victory by Mann would result in forcing media to accept government reports on pain of libel.

    The brief is a joint brief, but at the bottom EFF appears to be separating themselves by saying they are interested in not having media organizations be taken to court for the writings of others. So perhaps they are in support of CEI and NR but not Steyn and Simberg.

    Wow, perhaps you should read my prior posts to understand what I was saying. Do you really have to get so angry over a language dispute?

  268. #268 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “Are you saying that if they had found Mann guilty of fraud, that this could not be used to allow a case against Mann for fraud to go ahead?”
    Well if they had found fraud, that would be even more evidence that the case of libel should be thrown out

    Way to miss the point, retard.

    ACCORDING TO YOU, that should not happen, because to do so would be using the result of an investigation of what should be going to trial with a jury to refuse the jury a chance to decide on the facts for themselves.

    Indeed the FACT that I predicted just this scenario of two-faced bullshitting hypocrisy merely proves how blinkered and unwitting you really are.

    Even if this jury find Steyn et al guilty, you will still be whining about how they got it wrong.

    Because reality is nothing you are willing to get in the way of your preconceptions and desires.

    And given that, it’s pointless to talk to you. Only your claims will be destroyed, you will not be considered an active participant in the discussion.

  269. #269 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    and the SLAPP law is designed to protect people from being sued for libel on matters of public policy

    WRONG

    Go read the statutes.

  270. #270 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    Not that this is about public policy, it’s about accusations of deliberate fraud of Mann’s work by Steyn et al.

    Mann isn’t public policy. And neither is his work.

  271. #271 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    >But proven defamation has been said by every judge who has seen the evidence presented by both sides to them as having been done.

    That is false. .One judge expressly said that Mann has not shown he is likely to succeed, but used a different standard to rule against the defendants. The appeals court has said Mann has shown he is likely to succeed, but did not say that he has proven defamation. Indeed, if the first judge had used the same standard as the appeals court, then this case would have been thrown out years ago.

  272. #272 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “>But proven defamation has been said by every judge who has seen the evidence presented by both sides to them as having been done.

    That is false”

    That’s false. Visit reality some day. It’s a bit boring because it doesn’t always go your way., but surprise is a good thing.

    “One judge expressly said that Mann has not shown he is likely to succeed,”

    Now THAT’S false. Unless you’re talking about some judge who hasn’t been involved in the evidence, just spouted out about it.

    But an argument that is basically “I don’t want libel laws here!!!!”

  273. #273 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “The appeals court has said Mann has shown he is likely to succeed, but did not say that he has proven defamation. ”

    Someone who has missed every single time the following quote has been made of the judgement is not someone living in reality with the rest of humanity.

    ***Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence*** for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, ****by clear and convincing evidence***, that appellants did so with actual malice.

  274. #274 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “Do you really have to get so angry over a language dispute?”

    I seem to be having to make this link FAR too often.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

    The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.

    The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.

    But yet again, anger is being used because the claim is that there’s nothing to rebut by the one making the accusation, since the call against them is emotional, not rational.

    Just like claiming “you’re a racist”, the idea is that rather than argue a point made, make out that there’s nothing to argue against. Hence tone argument is an ad hom.

  275. #275 RickA
    United States
    December 27, 2016

    MikeN #267:

    I completely agree with your take as to the media companies being able to criticise government reports.

    I just wanted to clarify that the court didn’t rule on the substantive issue of defamation – but just decided to let the case proceed to trial.

    Mann still has to prove defamation – and some posters here do not believe that.

  276. #276 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    You can hold out the hope that JC will turn up at your birthday party, but this doesn’t make it usefully “a possibility”.

    “Mann still has to prove defamation – and some posters here do not believe that.”

    He has. To several judges. Who have said that it’s pretty much only going to be unreasonable juries.

    If you mean he has to prove it to a jury, well of course he hasn’t. But like I said above, it’s a bit of a long shot. No hopey-changey. There’s the OJ simpson trial to show that juries aren’t *entirely* reasonable people, but in that case it was mostly that the police did a shit job of looking after the evidence, leading to “reasonable doubt” *that the evidence was uncontaminated*.

    But this hasn’t had any evidence from Steyn et al other than “But we fiiink….!”.

    Apparently some here think that just because investigations have proven Mann is clean that somehow this means he can be libeled with no consequences for the criminals.

  277. #277 RickA
    United States
    December 27, 2016

    Wow #276 said “Apparently some here think that just because investigations have proven Mann is clean that somehow this means he can be libeled with no consequences for the criminals.”

    Nope.

    Some here think that the entire purpose of the trial is to determine if Mann was libeled.

    You are putting the cart before the horse.

    Also – libel is civil, not criminal.

    Civil is a determination of liability, by a preponderance of the evidence.

    Criminal is a determination of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

  278. #278 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    Wow, I didn’t leave it at just a ‘tone argument’. I already pointed out that you are wrong, and where you could have seen that you are wrong. I am aware of who is bringing the case and who is accused of libel. The issue was over the wording.

    From court(Judge Natalie Combs Greene) ruling against National Review denying the motion to dismiss, page 21,
    As a public figure, Plaintiff may only succeed in a suit for libel if he can prove“actual malice”… At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice. There is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false…

    At this stage, the evidence before the Court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to“actual malice,”however there is sufficient evidence to find that…

  279. #279 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    You don’t get to make a claim based on a lack of knowledge.

    “Some here think that the entire purpose of the trial is to determine if Mann was libeled.”

    Me too.

    “Also – libel is civil, not criminal.”

    And therefore there;’s no court? No judgement? What this REALLY means, for legal purposes, is that the standard of evidence is “on the balance of probabilities”, whereas the judges to dismiss had to have Mann pass the barrier of “beyond reasonable doubt”, much higher than required for a civil action.

    Which the judges have said has been passed.

    YOU seem to think that court decisions should never apply if it means that Mann is not a fraud.

    And that you know better than the judge what the evidence should mean.

  280. #280 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “Wow, I didn’t leave it at just a ‘tone argument’.”

    And even he agrees he made a tone argument. That was his final “point”. Know what “poisoning the well” means? That’s what Mike is trying.

    Only pointing it out as this is an antidote to such rhetorical bad play.

  281. #281 RickA
    United States
    December 27, 2016

    Wow – #279:

    No Wow.

    Beyond reasonable doubt plays no part in a civil trial.

    Court decisions decide some issues (like on a motion to dismiss).

    However, the questions of fact are left to the jury.

    I am merely pointing out that Mann has not proven defamation yet and the jury has not ruled on any fact issue in this case yet.

    So far, all the lower court and court of appeals have decided is not to dismiss the case – but to let it proceed to trial.

    That is all.

  282. #282 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “From court(Judge Natalie Combs Greene) ruling against National Review denying the motion to dismiss, page 21,
    As a public figure, Plaintiff may only succeed in a suit for libel if he can prove“actual malice”… At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice. ”

    But today we now know that HAS been met.

    Moreover, this is not what Judge Greene said on Mann’s case.

    At this stage, the evidence before the Court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to “actual malice,” however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of “actual malice.”
    Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene

    Note the excessive eliding hid quite an interesting context for this “slight evidence” claim from this retard.

    further discovery may uncover evidence of “actual malice

    Which is why Steyn et al wanted this kicked out so badly. Discovery for Mann will be quite hard to avoid, and so very damaging to their claims.

  283. #283 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “Beyond reasonable doubt plays no part in a civil trial.”

    It did in this ruling. Go read it.

    The link is right there at the top. You DO know how to read a PDF, right?

  284. #284 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “I am merely pointing out that Mann has not proven defamation yet ”

    Stop lying.

    He;s proven it to the judges.

    You were right when you claimed the jury hadn’t decided. You are WRONG when you claim he hasn’t proven it. Because that limit to “the jury” is quite significantly necessary in any discussion about what is liable to happen with a jury.

    And if this decision was not supposed to make a difference to a jury or the trial, then why the hell was so much time and money spent on it, and why are you so angry over it???

  285. #285 Desertphile
    December 27, 2016

    “Some here think that the entire purpose of the trial is to determine if Mann was libeled.”

    Everyone here, without exception, knows he was. You saw the evidence: you know it also.

  286. #286 Desertphile
    December 27, 2016

    “I am merely pointing out that Mann has not proven defamation yet….”

    … except to three judges, all whom have stated a jury facing the evidence and applying the Reasonable Man paradigm will find in Dr Mann’s favor.

  287. #287 RickA
    United States
    December 27, 2016

    Wow #283.

    I have read the decision.

    The “Beyond reasonable doubt” does not appear anywhere in the decision. Nor does “reasonable doubt”.

    The “clear and convincing” standard is discussed – perhaps you are confused that clear and convincing is the same as beyond a reasonable doubt?

  288. #288 RickA
    December 27, 2016

    Wow #284:

    You are so confused.

    The court of appeals stated on page 44:

    The precise question the court must ask, therefore, is
    whether a jury properly instructed on the law, including any applicable heightened fault and proof requirements, could reasonably find for the claimant on the evidence presented.”

    The court found that there is enough evidence so that a jury COULD reasonably find for Dr. Mann.

    But that is not the same as finding for Dr. Mann – that is left for the jury to actually do (or not do).

    The jury has found nothing yet.

  289. #289 Desertphile
    December 27, 2016

    “And if this decision was not supposed to make a difference to a jury or the trial, then why the hell was so much time and money spent on it, and why are you so angry over it?”

    Also, if Dr Mann was not libeled, shouldn’t the defendants have done everything they could to get the case before a jury? Or ask for the judge’s summary judgement?

  290. #290 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    You mean nowhere except the higher burden Mann needs to pass to continue. You know, the bulk of the decision and the bit that FLWolverine pointed out was a GOOD THING and MADE Anti-SLAPP *STRONGER*.

    And all that stuff about “No reasonable jury”? Well, according to you, that judge just didn’t know what reasonable doubt means, OBVIOUSLY. amirite?

    Because you know more about the court decision than the goddamned judge PUT IN THEIR RULING.

  291. #291 RickA
    December 27, 2016

    Desertphile #289:

    I am sure summary judgment motions will be made by defendants and maybe plaintiff – but not till after discovery is finished.

  292. #292 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    “Also, if Dr Mann was not libeled, shouldn’t the defendants have done everything they could to get the case before a jury?”

    ESPECIALLY Since prick here knows that he still has to prove it to the jury before we can say there’s proof. It can only be a jury decision, and that judges and previous investigations (as MikeN, his other sock) should never stop a jury deciding.

    Because deniers will deny ANYTHING that gets in their way.

  293. #293 Wow
    December 27, 2016

    Are you sure there’s anything to discover for Steyn?

    There’s a shitload that are irrelevant, and pretty much the only stuff they can use is stuff they have already. If they left their A-team material hidden, the courts of appeal will be SERIOUSLY pissed off, and may persuade the judge to count it invalid.

    But Mann still has a lot of room to request what went on with Steyn et al in getting this piece of crap out in the public eye to destroy his career, as long as it holds off doing anything about AGW until just a few more have cashed in.

  294. #294 Desertphile
    December 27, 2016

    “You mean nowhere except the higher burden Mann needs to pass to continue.”

    One of the tallest hurdles in tort litigation in fact— Dr. Mann had the First Amendment to leap over, which all three judges said he did.

  295. #295 Desertphile
    December 27, 2016

    “I am sure summary judgment motions will be made by defendants and maybe plaintiff – but not till after discovery is finished.”

    What, exactly, do you believe the defendants will produced during discovery that will induce them to finally ask for a summary judgement? If they are waiting to be deposed, why?

  296. #296 Desertphile
    December 27, 2016

    “Are you sure there’s anything to discover for Steyn?”

    Heh! Shit, he sure desperately needs to believe there is. What— do the cultists really believe Dr Mann has evidence showing it was some different cultists who libeled him?

    Nothing Dr Mann knows or can produce will have any bearing on the case. The defendants’ lawyers must have told the defendants this fact already.

  297. #297 MikeN
    December 27, 2016

    Wow, your definition of tone argument doesn’t match what I posted since I did not leave it at that. I had an actual argument, and said you were being angry when you could have just read what was written. You vented against a strawman of your own imagining.

    You say I have hidden something in the ellipses, but that is irrelevant. I showed what I said before. One of the judges declared Mann had not proven his case as you claimed, and the latest ruling declared that the first judge’s view of the evidence is enough to have the case thrown out. However, they had a different view of the evidence and so the case continues. That the first judge thought Mann might be able to prove his case in discovery doesn’t help your statement that all the judges think he has proven his case.

  298. #298 Brainstorms
    December 27, 2016

    One of the ironies of this case is that if Steyn, et al had publicly said that they entirely agreed with Dr Mann, and praised his results as the truth,

    THEN

    Published their claims that he committed fraud,

    Mann would STILL have a libel case against them to pursue.

    And NO ONE could claim that Mann was “trying to silence critics”. It would be obvious that his libel case is not silencing critics, because in my hypo above, he has no critics!

    But he would still have a valid case to sue for libel nevertheless.

    It’s obvious that his case has nothing to do with criticism or others’ opinions of his work. He is defending his name, reputation, and career against character assassination and defamation.

    I expect he really doesn’t care if anyone is unhappy with what he discovered. In fact, he probably expects it — and he’s probably unhappy with his results, too. I am.

    But I’m not about to libel him because of that fact.

  299. #299 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, your definition of tone argument doesn’t match what I posted since”

    You don’t want to accept the ad hom and distraction was made.

    ‘sfunny, tone trolls won’t admit to tone trolling. It’s almost like they don’t want to be thought of as tone trolling when they do it because it removes the ability to make people do what they demand.

    “You say I have hidden something in the ellipses, but that is irrelevant.”

    No, it’s quite relevant. You removed everything except the tired old denier quote mine of “the judge said there was ‘slight’ evidence”. Which is far from the truth. Moreover, Judge Greene says Mann has proven that this is not opinion and provably false statement of fact and that Mann has passed on enough evidence to find Steyn et al guilty. More quotes left in the dark because you’re not here to argue truth, only to find the nuggets that you can pretend show Mann is wrong.

    That’s called lying.

  300. #300 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “It’s obvious that his case has nothing to do with criticism or others’ opinions of his work.”

    It is also obvious that “MikeN”‘s concern has nothing to do with that either.

    ” He is defending his name, reputation, and career against character assassination and defamation.”

    But it is obvious that “MikeN”‘s problem is that he shouldn’t be allowed to defend against this happening. This troll doesn’t care that he’s been libeled, he only wants his name tarnished to scare other scientists into silence and to “justify” his denial of AGW.

  301. #301 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Original claim: “One judge expressly said that Mann has not shown he is likely to succeed,”

    ‘Support’ quote: ”… At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice. ”

    Eliding “At this stage, the evidence before the Court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to “actual malice,” however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of “actual malice.””

    And Eliding: “In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the NR Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the NR Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the NR Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth”

    Defending the use of the “supporting” quote: “I am merely pointing out that Mann has not proven defamation yet ”

    (note, not proving actual malice is not failing to prove defamation)
    (note2,actual malice is only required to get damages, reckless disregard for the truth and false statements of fact are also piercing the “First Amendment” protections of speech, proving libel has been taken, even against a “public figure” (who is only public because deniers shoved him up there))

  302. #302 Chris O'Neill
    December 28, 2016

    The fact is that Steyn libeled Man with malice and reckless disregard for the truth, and unless Steyn has some evidence supporting his claims, he will be guilty of reckless disregard of the truth and libel.

    This is just so funny. First the clowns like Dan were so sure that Mann’s case was going to fail because Dan Farber claimed that Mann’s lawsuit will ultimately fail because he’s a public figure but Farber forgets about reckless disregard for the truth which mean malice which means the public figure defence fails.

    Not to be deterred, clowns like RickA give up on the public figure defence and now move on to a truth defence.

    No matter how many times they lose, the global warming denialist clowns will never give up.

  303. #303 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2016

    Chris #302:

    I have not given up on malice or reckless disregard.

    Each and every aspect of a defamation claim remains to be proven by Dr. Mann.

    No issue of fact has been decided on yet.

    Those are all for the jury.

    I won’t “give up” until the case is actually decided by the jury (assuming it is not decided on summary judgment, of course).

    That is what any lawyer would tell you.

  304. #304 Desertphile
    December 28, 2016

    “Each and every aspect of a defamation claim remains to be proven by Dr. Mann.”

    https://ldaamerica.org/types-of-learning-disabilities/

  305. #305 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Sheeit, is that retarded little bellend STILL lying? It’s been proven to three sets of judges, moron!

  306. #306 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “I have not given up on malice or reckless disregard.”

    The judges disagree. So you’re betting on a corrupt jury.

    Got it.

  307. #307 dean
    United States
    December 28, 2016

    So you’re betting on a corrupt jury.

    Remember that all it takes is one jury member as stupid and dishonest as rickA for things to go wrong.

  308. #308 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Oh this is civil and not even has death penalty for Stern et al, so they need more than one as braindead and corrupt as rick here.

    And most of them will forget to breathe before giving a verdict.

  309. #309 FLwolverine
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, Desertphile, others – Sorry if this comes across as scolding but I wish you guys would stop letting RickA jerk you around. As much as you dislike him and the positions he takes, some of what he says about this case and about the law are accurate. If you accept that and go on, then you can stop wasting time arguing about things that are facts, and argue about more important stuff.

    Within “the law”, words have meanings. Sometimes those meanings are defined by statute, sometimes by case law, but the meanings are there, and it’s confusing and unproductive to try to insist that a word or phrase (a so-called “term of art”) doesn’t mean what the courts and legislatures have said that it means. Now, it’s possible to argue that one of these terms of art “should” mean something else, that the statutory or judicial definition is too narrow or too broad or just plain wrong, but that’s a different discussion and a different argument than what you’re arguing about here.

    Fact: “beyond a reasonable doubt” is standard used in criminal cases. Mann vs Steyn is a civil case. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is irrelevant in this case, and the appellate court didn’t use the term.

    Fact: the appellate court set a standard to be used in judging a special motion to dismiss brought under the anti-SLAPP law. That standard is whether the plaintiff has presented “evidence which is legally sufficient to permit a jury properly instructed on the applicable constitutional standards to reasonably find in the plaintiff’s favor.” The appellate court found in this case that the Plaintiff, Mann, had met that standard. That’s a high standard, and the finding says good things about the strength of Mann’s case, but it does not decide the case (as everyone here has acknowledged) and it is not conclusive as to whether the defendants’ words were defamatory. The usual approach by defendants would now be to try to discover and present at trial evidence that contradicts the court’s analysis of each of the elements of Mann’s case.

    If you’re going to argue about this, the argument is about what evidence the defendants might be able to find to dispute Mann’s case. But there’s no doubt that the defendants can conduct discovery (although Mann may be able to obtain limitations on the extent of that discovery) and that they can present evidence that contradicts the appellate court’s statements about Mann’s case (and we can argue about what such evidence should be and the quality of it). (And there’s not penalty for presenting evidence that contradicts the appellate court’s statements.)

    Fact: sorry, guys, Mann has not “proven” all the elements of his defamation case. He has demonstrated to three sets of judges that he has enough evidence to go forward to be allowed to prove his case. We won’t know whether he has fully “proven” his case until a jury (at trial) or a judge (in a motion for summary judgment) decides that. The jury or judge will have to consider all of Mann’s evidence (including anything obtained during discovery) and all of the defendant’s evidence. If you want to argue about semantics, then you could say Mann has “proven” his case for purposes of the anti-SLAPP motion, but you have to realize that it’s only proven for that limited purpose.

    Fact: yes, there can and probably will be further motions to dismiss this case. Although the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss has been decided, there are other options under the rules of court. As I’ve said before, defendants could bring such a motion after the close of discovery and even after the presentation of evidence at trial. The grounds for such a motion are generally “plaintiff has failed to prove his case.” From what we’ve seen so far, such a motion probably wouldn’t be successful, but it all depends on what turns up on discovery.

    RickA keeps inflaming people here because he refuses to acknowledge what a significant win this is for Mann. Instead, he keeps emphasizing that the case still has to go to trial in order to decide the defamation issue. And he’s right about that – a jury has to hear everyone’s evidence and make a decision. That’s simply the way the system works, and RickA is not going to change his position regardless of how much you argue with him. So let it go! Mann’s victory is that he got to this point at all – he satisfied the high anti-SLAPP standard and can go forward with his case. It’s a big victory. Just don’t lose sight of or underestimate the size of the task – going to trial – before him.

  310. #310 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “some of what he says about this case and about the law are accurate.”

    And some of it not.

    Much of the rest is half truths, even when it;s given to him that it’s partly right, he NEVER bothers with the correction.

    See #4: if they bring up new evidence
    (mind you, even you ignored or forgot I said that then told me I was not right because if they had new evidence not disclosed….)

    See above, where he says “They haven’t proved malice!” when we say “No, proved it to the judge”, he then claims “He’s not proved it to the jury yet!” WE AGREE but point out that three judges think this is done as far as they can tell, he then insists “It’s not proved!!!!”, where we have to YET AGAIN correct him on his lie.

    so, please don’t take this the wrong way, but that fuckwit really doesn’t listen to anyone, including you, who he will quotemine to “prove” he’s right, even when you have said he’s wrong in several places, and by giving him a free passs, you’re feeding his delusion AND increasing his desire to troll yet more.

    Remember what you just said we should refrain from?

    Yup.

    You too.

  311. #311 FLwolverine
    December 28, 2016

    #293 – Wow: “There’s a shitload that are irrelevant, and pretty much the only stuff they can use is stuff they have already. If they left their A-team material hidden, the courts of appeal will be SERIOUSLY pissed off, and may persuade the judge to count it invalid”

    No, the system doesn’t work that way. Defendants were not required to present all their evidence in the context of the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. If they left out something crucial and dispositive, then that was just stupid, because if the evidence was that good, it would have helped them win their anti-SLAPP motion and spared them the time and cost of a trial. But the appellate court doesn’t care if more evidence comes up later – if the defendants were dumb or careless enough to omit evidence they already had, that’s their tough luck.

    And the appellate court will not try to “persuade” the trial judge to hold evidence “invalid” (by which I think you mean not admissible). The appellate court isn’t going to do anything more about this case unless and until one of the parties asks them to – which means another motion or another appeal. They didn’t retain some kind of “superintending control” (which I doubt would even be legal here), and they are not going to act on their own motion. That’s not how the system works.

  312. #312 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “but it all depends on what turns up on discovery”

    But the judges already know what has been discovered. And from that, the judges all agree that it’s clear and convincing (for actual malice) and preponderance of evidence (for libel).

    You’re insisting that some magic bullet is hidden.

    The only magic bullet is one that will kill Steyn et al.

    Because there’s fuck all left for Steyn to get. Only Mann will have information that has not been available (internal emails and receipts for the work Steyn was paid for, etc), which really can’t be helping STEYN at all.

    so you can sit there and insist that some magic bullet may save their bacon, but you can’t presume it exists just on hopey-change, nor make claims of it being possible without SOME evidence of that.

    And you REALLY can’t sit there and claim to know how good the evidence is when you’re against the opinion of the judges who know far more about what has been presented than anyone here, including you.

  313. #313 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Defendants were not required to present all their evidence in the context of the anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss”

    So what?

    Go on, give us some of your wisdom, here. WHAT evidence could they have yet to come?

    Santa’s affidavit?

    A note from mum that they were ill that day and were delirious?

    A courtroom confession?

    What evidence do you think they can have to show they’re innocent?

    Stop presupposing that because something can be imagined to be possible, that this means it must be possible.

    I can imagine invisible pink unicorns are eating socks exist,but this doesn’t make them possible to really exist.

  314. #314 FLwolverine
    December 28, 2016

    Wow – “See #4: if they bring up new evidence
    (mind you, even you ignored or forgot I said that then told me I was not right because if they had new evidence not disclosed….)”

    So much has been said here that I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but here’s the thing: Defendants can bring in “new evidence” at trial. “New” meaning evidence they haven’t ever presented to any of the courts so far. It could be stuff they have now and didn’t disclose, or it could be new stuff they find during discovery. Now, during discovery, Mann will have the opportunity to discover the evidence defendants intend to present at trial, so it won’t be “new” in the sense of a surprise (at least not if his lawyers do a good job). But it can certainly be stuff none of the courts have seen before.

    Just please accept that the appellate court only decided on the quality of the evidence as it related to the anti-SLAPP motion. It did not determine the quality or extent of the evidence as it relates to the trial. Mann still has to prove his case.

  315. #315 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Fact: “beyond a reasonable doubt” is standard used in criminal cases. Mann vs Steyn is a civil case. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is irrelevant in this case, and the appellate court didn’t use the term.”

    One they did use:

    by clear and convincing evidence

    Sosume.

  316. #316 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “So much has been said here that I’m not sure what you’re referring to,”

    Hint:
    Wow – “See #4:”

  317. #317 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    ” the appellate court only decided on the quality of the evidence as it related to the anti-SLAPP motion”

    Right. So there was no need to look at any evidence by the judge and all the words they used was a waste of time.

    Nah, I think that I’ll consider the judges words as meaning something, if it’s all right to you.

  318. #318 FLwolverine
    December 28, 2016

    #312 and 313 – Wow – You’re contradicting yourself. First you say the judges know what has been discovered so nothing else can turn up. But discovery hasn’t even started in this case. What the judges know is what the parties have presented to them.

    Then you say that Steyn can’t turn up anything new in discovery. I agree that it’s hard to imagine what the defendants can find in discovery that would help their case (although I can imagine what they would look for), and I agree that it’s more likely that Mann will find evidence to support the actual malice claim. But that’s a different discussion than what I’m talking about. There isn’t any question that the defendants can conduct discovery and they can present whatever they think can help their case (and of course Mann can contest whether the evidence they present is accurate, relevant, etc etc)

    Wow, look – I’m on your side. I want Mann to win this case and I want Steyn and National Review to be hit hard. I’m just trying to point out how the judicial system works so people can be realistic and accurate in discussing the case.

    If I say something about the science of climate change that is inaccurate because I don’t understand the science, then I accept correction from somebody who does understand the science. It’s the same with the discussion of the case: I’m trying to talk about what the “terms of art” mean and how they apply and how the system works, because I’ve been involved with it (the system) for so long.

  319. #319 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    ” First you say the judges know what has been discovered so nothing else can turn up”

    No, first I say the judges know what has been presented. You don’t. You can read their opinion of it, and they are more knowledgeable than you are.

    If they discovered more than that, what do YOU Say it is?

    If you think something will turn up WHAT IS IT?

    “because I’ve been involved with it (the system) for so long.”

    So you will be able to tell us what has been discovered that will defeat this case then, right?

    And you will be able to tell us what you think will be discovered to defeat this case, yes?

    Or are you imagining that there could be invisible pink unicorns, and they have to eat socks, therefore they could exist eating socks?

    Because I’ve already pointed out that this doesn’t mean they can possibly exist.

    So stop waving your hand in front of our faces and telling us that you are the lawyer, start telling us what you think they could have to come that will change the jury that the judges haven’t seen.

  320. #320 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Look, if you’re scared this will be held against you, you don’t have to predict the information correctly, just give us all examples of what you think could possibly come up, so we can work out how “possible” this is. And if you can’t come up with something you think is plausible, we know how to interpret your “but they could get something in discovery” claim.

  321. #321 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Brainstorms, under your hypothetical it would be libel and defamation I presume. I don’t comprehend the argument you are trying to make. Here the speakers do believe Mann has committed fraud.

  322. #322 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, if it makes you feel better I will apologize for using ‘angry’ as that is not quite the word I had in mind. I do think your reaction was unwarranted, and feel you are still doing it. The statement to which you responded had nothing to do with the main argument of this thread, and you could have seen it if you were a little more reasoned.

    As for leaving things out of the judge’s ruling, there were two separate things I quoted. One of them I did go on to say that Mann had shown some malice. I think the second one was similar to that. Either way, it is irrelevant.
    The point was that under the Appeals Court standard, what the first judge found would have gotten the case thrown out. It didn’t matter that Mann could discover things going forward, present a stronger case, etc.
    The Appeals Court has a different view of the evidence than the first judge, and a different view of how much evidence needs to be presented.

  323. #323 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2016

    FLwolverine:

    Thank you very much for chiming in with your comments.

    Although we are pulling for the opposite sides, we agree on the process.

    The case goes forward.

    Discovery will resume.

    Steyn responded to document production (and I believe interrogatories).

    However, I don’t believe Mann has had to answer any document production or interrogatories yet (discovery was stayed pending the decision on appeal).

    No depositions have been taken yet.

    Once discovery is complete, each side may (or may not) file a motion for summary judgment.

    As to what could be discovered:

    I expect the Defendant’s will ask Dr. Mann to answer document production and interrogatories.

    Then the defendant’s will want to take Dr. Mann’s deposition.

    What the defendant’s will be looking for is information about how Dr. Mann created his various hockey stick graphs.

    Not just the ones which were published in MBH98, MBH99 and the 2008 paper (also maybe the WMO 1999 cover) – but which graphs were reviewed as part of selecting the ones for publication.

    Did Dr. Mann review graphs with different proxies than the ones published?

    Did Dr. Mann review graphs with different numbers of principal components? 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 etc.

    Did Dr. Mann review a graph which was centered versus de-centered?

    How did Dr. Mann arrive at his de-centered PCA technique?

    What was in the censored folder?

    Why use upside down varves?

    Why use the greybill strippark proxy?

    What about the R2 statistic – did they in fact generate it?

    If so (and we know he did) – why not publish it in the paper?

    What about the North report and the fact that no matter what you run through Dr. Mann’s process – a hockey stick comes out the grinder?

    And so on.

    There are literally hundreds of issues and questions which are relevant to data manipulation and whether the various graphs were fraudulent.

    Personally, I would spend some time on whether they selected the graph with an eye towards the “best” hockey stick – the one with the flattest handle and the sharpest blade.

    If the graph was selected to aid as a propaganda tool that could be construed to be fraudulent.

    Was Dr. Mann trying to get rid of the MWP?

    Was there any process for picking a graph which would help argue that the current warming was unprecedented?

    I have no idea how Dr. Mann would answer questions related to these topics – but those are the sorts of issues that would come up.

    The defendants will also want to ask Dr. Mann questions about the reports issued about his work.

    To confirm what was or not reviewed by each panel, and which issues they did and did not review.

    I cannot remember all the details – but I am sure that these topics will also be covered.

    They will also ask questions about damages – how was Dr. Mann’s reputation damaged?

    They will ask Dr. Mann about other papers published which he has alleged were fraudulent (or some variation of the fraud word). I quoted his comment about MM05 earlier in the thread – there may be others.

    Lots of discovery – which could give rise to lots of arguments which help with whether the statements were opinion in the first place – or with reckless disregard and so on.

    Or any of the other affirmative defenses (truth and so on).

    I really hope the transcripts are published, because I want to see what questions are asked and how Dr. Mann answers them.

  324. #324 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “The case goes forward.”

    So please tell everyone why don’t thank us for agreeing that the case goes forward?

    “I expect the Defendant’s will ask Dr. Mann to answer document production and interrogatories.”

    Which would be what?

    “Have you got anything that shows you’re guilty?”

    “What the defendant’s will be looking for is information about how Dr. Mann created his various hockey stick graphs.”

    200% irrelevant. Steyn’s claims were re: MBH1998. If he has to go to anything else, then he’s admitting that he knew he was lying.

    “And so on.”

    All of the ones you gave are inadmissable fishing.

    Will not be allowed.

    Try something rational.

    “I cannot remember all the details”

    They’re pointless because they are irrelevant to the claims Steyn made about Mann.

    “Lots of discovery ”

    Refused as irrelevant.

  325. #325 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Here the speakers do believe Mann has committed fraud.”

    no, they know they were lying.

  326. #326 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2016

    Wow #324:

    The case is all about data manipulation and whether Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.

    Anything to do with statistical analysis and how the graphs were created or selected for publication is relevant to the issues of the case.

    Of course, I am not the attorney working the case – so I am just speculating on the topics of discovery.

    But your definition of relevancy is woefully wrong.

    Why do you think Steyn’s claims are to MBH1998?

    Did his opinion piece mention MBH1998?

    Or did it just refer to “the fraudulent hockey stick graph”?

  327. #327 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “I do think your reaction was unwarranted”

    i do not care, you have proven you are not an honest broker here and you will say anything to rubbish any claims you do not wish to argue against.

    “As for leaving things out of the judge’s ruling, there were two separate things I quoted”

    irrelevant again. You made a claim that was not supported by your quotemine.

    And your quotemine was lying (by omission of the context indicating what REALLY was being talked about).

    “I think the second one was similar to that. Either way, it is irrelevant.”

    Indeed they were, BUT YOU BROUGHT THEM UP. They are irrelevant because they do not talk about the claim you made, but another one.

    And you still don’t have a quote that supports the claim you made.

    Yet you whinge about how I’m being mean to you because you want to muddy the water….

    “The Appeals Court has a different view of the evidence than the first judge”

    Indeed, that court indicated that ***compelling evidence*** was supplied to support the claim of malice.

    Not *quite* what you want to be considered, is it.

    “The point was that under the Appeals Court standard, what the first judge found would have gotten the case thrown out. ”

    Where do you get that idea from? It wasn’t ANYWHERE in either case conclusion.

    You see, unlike you, they don’t quotemine other judges’ decisions.

    The court found “slight” evidence of malice,but that the claim of opinion had been defeated as a reason to dismiss. And that there was sufficient proof of reckless disregard for the truth that it was actionable.

    Both of which would have ALSO meant this appeal would have been passed based solely on the opinion of the earlier judge.

    Because THIS appeal was not dismissing by reason of “no actual malice”, but by claim of being “opinion”, which the earlier courts BOTH had found wrong.

  328. #328 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “The case is all about data manipulation”

    No it isn’t, it;s about libel.

    If you want a case about data manipulation, then you have to bring a case against Mann for data manipulation.

    THIS case is about Steyn libeling Mann.

    FUCK ALL about data manipulation, unless you mean Steyn has been fudging figures.

    Maybe Mann will find that McIntyre had supplied a fraudulent claim to Steyn, who, with RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH, ignored all the claims of McI’s paper being wrong, and all the evidence of Mann’s being valid, and continued to libel Mann, bringing McIntyre and McKitrick both into the court as active participants in the libel.

    Another reason why deniers ignore that Mann gets to demand information if this gets to trial. and why the deniers here wanted this dismissed before trial.

  329. #329 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Did Dr. Mann review graphs with different proxies than the ones published?”

    Steyn doesn’t know this? Then how can it be relevant to his belief that Mann committed fraud by manipulating data?

  330. #330 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Come on, this was the first discovery question you thought of, prick, lets go through them one at a time and see why you think they are pertinent.

    “Did Dr. Mann review graphs with different proxies than the ones published?”

    So tell us, if Steyn doesn’t know the answer, how can it be relevant to his current belief that Mann committed fraud by manipulating data?

  331. #331 RickA
    United States
    December 28, 2016

    Wow – your view that people can only opine about things which they know absolutely is not correct.

    People suspect stuff and write their opinions about their suspicions all the time.

    Many suspect that Mr. Trump did not give anything to charity (or very little). They want to see his tax returns to verify their suspicions.

    Much has been written about this topic.

    Has Trump been libeled?

    Of course not.

    In America we get to distrust people in positions of power and suspect their motives for trying to change the entire economic landscape of the world (I am referring to Dr. Mann here).

    Any suspicion Mr. Steyn (or the other defendants) had in their head when they wrote what they wrote, which is bolstered by finding out what Dr. Mann actually did or how he did it – is fair game for discovery.

    If Dr. Mann created a version of a graph which wasn’t very persuasive – and censored it in favor of a much more persuasive version – that goes to help support Steyn’s suspicions about data manipulation or fraudulent graphs.

    So – no – Steyn doesn’t need to know the answer to any of the things he wants to question Dr. Mann about.

    And the answers may be relevant to the issue of honest belief or truth or even opinion.

  332. #332 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Ignoringyour irrelevant bollocks about trump and other empty bloviating, we start almost at the end of that tiresome post:

    “If Dr. Mann created a version of a graph which wasn’t very persuasive”

    So Steyn has evidence that a less persuasive graph was produced?

    If not, then tell us how something that Steyn has never seen can convince Steyn that Mann was committing fraud?

  333. #333 dean
    December 28, 2016

    The case is all about data manipulation and whether Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.

    Since it has been reviewed and reviewed by scientists, and stood up to those reviews. from the point of view of the scientific community it isn’t fraudulent.

    It’s only when you get to the science deniers who assert is is fraudulent, and do so without evidence, that you hear there are issues with it.

  334. #334 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Come on, to find Steyn innocent he needs some evidence he already has to find reason to believe there’s an undiscovered fraud going on. Undiscovered, moreover, by four investigations and 12 further reconstructions (plus one done in four days time by the BLOODY JUDGE HIMSELF) that don’t use the same methods or the same proxies, yet all get a hockey stick, several of which Steyn himself KNEW ABOUT *because some he reported on*.

    If he had no reason to believe there was fraud, then he was lying. Either with reckless disregard, or with malice and knowledge of the lie. EITHER of which means libel has been committed.

    If Steyn, or anyone, wanted to investigate Mann for fraud, they should have made a case and brought Mann to court on that charge, not libeled him, then insist that this means another “free” (to them) investigation of Mann.

  335. #335 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “It’s only when you get to the science deniers who assert is is fraudulent, and do so without evidence, that you hear there are issues with it.”

    And when you do so without evidence, you are making a libelous claim, not an opinion one.

    You don’t just get to say “I REALLY believed it was”, because that IS NOT a defence on provable facts.

    Morons who insist would be insisting this scenario is valid in every court case in the land:

    Judge: Do you plead guilty or not guilty?
    Defendant: Not guilty
    Judge: Fair enough. Next case!

    Because you need some valid reason, not mere assertion of your belief before it becomes acceptable as a claim in court.

  336. #336 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Come on, rick.

    Reckless disregard would be admitted if Steyn asked that question as “reason” for him to think there was a fraud.

    And reckless disregard makes his claims actionable.

  337. #337 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    RickA, I’d be interested to here FL’s opinion, but I am leaning towards Wow, that discovery should not be necessary for defendants to make their case. Given that Mann has brought the suit, I can see how he is opening himself up for discovery, but defendants’ saying ‘Please provide us evidence that you are a fraud’, doesn’t make sense.

    The questions you provide I agree something like that might come up.

  338. #338 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, it is not the court’s findings which are irrelevant, but my deletions. The court found the evidence was slight. They also said that under discovery it could be a stronger case. I am pretty much in agreement with you about what the court said.

    Your argument about my ellipses- there were two portions both of which were evidence is weak but …
    in the first case I left in the context and in the second I did not, I feel both of these are similar in wording and nothing is changed by including a second time. You seem to think it makes me a liar.

  339. #339 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Given that Mann has brought the suit, I can see how he is opening himself up for discovery,”

    How?

    He has evidence to support his claims, and the defendants get to find anything to rebut any of that. And the remaining evidence is then weighed by the jury as to whether there’s been enough of an act that a guilty verdict is supported by evidence.

    And if they return “Guilty”, the judge then decides, based on the evidence given, and the guidelines for the law, what judgement to make and the penalty to apply.

    “The questions you provide I agree something like that might come up.”

    ***This case is not about Mann’s hockey stick graph being fraudulent***. This is about whether Steyn had reason to believe that it was fraudulent.

    So, why might they come up? There has to be reason for asking,the answer must rationally end with some claim that COULD find for the party doing the requesting.

    What answer would be made to, for example, the first one that prick here came up with.

    “If Mann had a less persuasive one…”. Any reason to believe there is such a scenario? No. Therefore there’s no reason to ask.

  340. #340 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    “Did Dr. Mann review graphs with different proxies than the ones published?”

    So tell us, if Steyn doesn’t know the answer, how can it be relevant to his current belief that Mann committed fraud by manipulating data?

    Wow, I believe the purpose of the question is to get Mann to affirm to the court what Steyn believes is the answer to the question.

  341. #341 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    > assert is is fraudulent, and do so without evidence, that you hear there are issues with it.

    Except they have evidence. The website climateaudit.org is pretty much dedicated to it.

    For that matter so is
    http://amac1.blogspot.com/

  342. #342 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, it is not the court’s findings which are irrelevant, but my deletions. ”

    1) No, they change the meaning severely
    2) They are irrelevant either way because the claim was not “had not proved actual malice” but “not shown he is likely to succeed”. Actual malice ***IS NOT NECESSARY***. Actual malice allows suing for compensation and damages.

  343. #343 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Except they have evidence.”

    No they don’t. None we have available to us.

    “The website climateaudit.org is pretty much dedicated to it.”

    Nope, the claims there are unverifiable bollocks by someone whose attempt to write a paper “proving” Mann wrong was itself far more flawed and contained REAL LIES.

    Moreover, it would have been available to the judge right now, and ALL THREE COURTS said that the claims were provably false AND PROVEN FALSE.

    So, no, this isn’t valid.

  344. #344 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, I believe the purpose of the question is to get Mann to affirm to the court what Steyn believes is the answer to the question.”

    Which is what?

  345. #345 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Unless Mann says “I made up a fraudulent dataset to show a hockey stick”, Steyn’s belief IS NOT SUPPORTED by *ANY* reply Mann makes.

  346. #346 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    And if Mann says “No”?

    If Steyn thinks there is, how will he prove that the answer given was a lie?

    IOW *is there any reason to think such an answer would support Steyn’s claim*?

  347. #347 SteveP
    Interlude
    December 28, 2016

    I apologize for trying to bring a some science into this little tiff about nuances of jurisprudence (Damn. Mom alway said I should have been a lawyer!) … but I just eyeballed the latest GLOBAL sea ice extent data. Looks to be about 10 million square kilometers below the mean for this time of year, and maybe 5 million square kilometers below the lowest ever previous recorded extent for this day of the year.

    Not very persuasive? Not very persuasive??

    Ha, ha!

    How about you clever doubters and deniers all go take a collective flying fuck at a rolling Dunkin doughnut! Fiddle away, little Neros, because this baby is, definitely, set on fire!…

    I’m not sure how much traction their current stupidity defense is going to buy for the fossil fuel funded Simberg- Steyn mercenaries and their backers…. …. . but at some point, there will be enough evidence of fossil fuel waste warming (FFWW) to convince all but a few flat earthers, flat worms, and pigeons that this is a real thing…. and that the fossil fuel oligarchy is responsible for one cock up major! .

    And, sadly, this is not an argument that I want to win! Christ, I wish that the science was wrong…. but it is not. I am pretty sure that, if I live long enough, I will be helping my low lander friends evacuate from storm-surge-induced coastal flooding events in the next decade or two . What a great event to look forward to.

    So, thanks Nixon Mobil. We couldn’t have done it without you! Thanks Rex Tillerson! ! You are a real boy scout….Thanks Jimmy Inhofe, Mark the Moron, et. al.

    I have a date with Ethyl Palpitate so I am going to sign off while I can still do so.
    Bye.

  348. #348 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, that’s a lot of supposition for a question that itself is a guess. If Mann says no, then the question is not helpful to Steyn. Steyn presumably is expecting an answer along the lines of
    “I made up a fraudulent dataset to show a hockey stick”
    Defendants expect to be able to show certain facts, and argue that this constitutes fraud.

    The court rulings- the first court determined that ‘likely to succeed’ has a certain meaning, where slight evidence is enough. The appeals court determined ‘likely to succeed’ has a different meaning, where slight evidence is not enough.

    And yes, Mann has to show actual malice.

  349. #349 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, that’s a lot of supposition for a question that itself is a guess”

    So you are agreeing that there’s no reason to ask the question rick posed?

    “Steyn presumably is expecting an answer along the lines of
    “I made up a fraudulent dataset to show a hockey stick””

    So, apparently not.

    If this was required, then this is admitting that Steyn had NO EVIDENCE of fraud, ergo his claims were a reckless disregard to the truth, yes?

  350. #350 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “The court rulings- the first court determined that ‘likely to succeed’ has a certain meaning, where slight evidence is enough”

    WRONG.

    Please stop lying about Judge Greene’s ruling.

  351. #351 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “And yes, Mann has to show actual malice.”

    WRONG.

    Mann does NOT have to show actual malice. It only opens up compensation for a “public figure” being libeled.

    DO NOT LIE about the frigging law, you moron.

  352. #352 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    http://lawdigest.uslegal.com/tort-and-personal-injury-actions/libel-and-slander/7311

    Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity

    Where “recovery” means compensation.

  353. #353 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, you say I am lying about the ruling. Did the judge find the evidence was slight? Did the judge say Mann was likely to succeed? If the answer to both questions is yes, then I don’t see how you can argue that the judge used a definition of likely to succeed where slight evidence is enough.

  354. #354 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, you say I am lying about the ruling”

    Yes.

    “Did the judge find the evidence was slight?”

    Did the judge say that this was actual malice? Go on, answer that question or explain why doing so would be wrong, in which case you will see why your question was likewise wrong.

  355. #355 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    RickA, I agree with FL that you are misreading what the court has found. They haven’t made ‘no decision’ on the merits of the case, and indeed found that Mann has shown the elements of defamation.

  356. #356 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, you say I am lying about the ruling”

    Yes, and you are.

    “Did the judge say Mann was likely to succeed? ”

    YES. Which you claimed was not said.

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/#comment-640455

    That is false. .One judge expressly said that Mann has not shown he is likely to succeed,

    Then: One judge expressly said that Mann has not shown he is likely to succeed,

    Now: “Did the judge say Mann was likely to succeed?” with a protest of innocence of lying if the answer to that was “Yes”. Ergo “The judge said Mann was likely to succeed”.

  357. #357 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “I don’t see how you can argue that the judge used a definition of likely to succeed where slight evidence is enough.”

    Because a proof of defamation (per se) is NOT showing actual malice, and Judge Greene indicated their opinion was that *at that time* there was slight evidence for actual malice.

    WHICH IS NOT SLIGHT EVIDENCE==LIKELY TO SUCCEED.

    Get it now?

  358. #358 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, this is the first I have heard of this issue of damages vs libel. Could you explain that. I think you are getting confused on portions where the court uses definition of actual malice instead of the precise phrase. For example, pg 53 of appeals court ruling
    We conclude that Dr. Mann hurdled the Anti-SLAPP statute’s threshold showing of likelihood of success on the merits
    because the evidence he has presented is legally sufficient to support findings by the fact-finder that statements…
    were defamatory, were published by appellants…, and
    were made with actual malice.

    Just before that, they did not use ‘actual malice’ to describe what was needed to be proven by the plaintiff to win.
    Pg 80-81
    Moreover, to prevail, the plaintiff in such a lawsuit
    bears a higher burden of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard usually applicable in civil cases; the plaintiff must persuade the fact-finder that the
    defendant acted with actual malice in publishing the de
    famatory statements by clear and convincing evidence
    .
    See N.Y. Times Co., 376 U.S. at 285-86 (referring
    to the “convincing clarity which the constitutional standard demands”).
    81
    A plaintiff may prove actual malice by showing that the defendant either (1) had “subjective knowledge of the statement’s falsity,” or
    (2) acted with “reckless disregard for whether or not the statement was false.”

  359. #359 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Note that Judge Greene also indicated that further discovery would likely show evidence of actual malice. And, with this later judgement, the judge has ruled there is *clear and convincing evidence* for actual malice.

  360. #360 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, this is the first I have heard of this issue of damages vs libel. Could you explain that.”

    Given a link already.

    And you would do MUCH BETTER if you stopped claiming that it must be actual malice to find libel against a public figure if you’re not actually sure what libel itself is.

    Be a good fucking start, that would.

  361. #361 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    ” For example, pg 53 of appeals court ruling”

    Judge Greene’s ruling only goes to page 22,IIRC.

  362. #362 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Indeed a phrase you quote does not appear in Greene’s ruling.

    Are you talking about THIS court ruling linked above and NO LONGER Greene’s ruling?

    Because if so, what the fuck happened to your claim regarding one judge said there was slight evidence, and that judge was Judge Greene?

  363. #363 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, perhaps we are arguing different things. The court found that the statements were defamatory. However, to show proof of defamation(win the case), you have to show actual malice. The case is one of defamation. The word libel does not appear in the appeals court ruling.

    “Judge Greene indicated their opinion was that *at that time* there was slight evidence for actual malice.”
    Yes. My point is that if the appeals court had the same opinion, they would have thrown out the case. Precisely because they agreed that
    WHICH IS NOT SLIGHT EVIDENCE==LIKELY TO SUCCEED.

    The first judge declared that slight evidence is enough to mean likely to succeed.

    Let me see if I can explain it a bit better. First judge said
    “Mann has shown slight evidence. Perhaps he could find more evidence to prove his case. So he has a chance to succeed. Case can go forward.”
    Appeals court said that is not enough, Mann has to show more.

  364. #364 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “The first judge declared that slight evidence is enough to mean likely to succeed.”

    No they didn’t!

    STOP FRIGGING LYING.

  365. #365 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    ” My point is that if the appeals court had the same opinion, they would have thrown out the case.”

    NO THEY WOULD NOT.

    Actual malice is NOT REQUIRED for a libel suit.

    Only for recovery. READ MY FRIGGING POSTS.

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/#comment-640561

  366. #366 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Let me see if I can explain it a bit better. First judge said
    “Mann has shown slight evidence….””

    No they didn’t.

  367. #367 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    In the court document:

    Case No. 2012 CA 008263 B
    Judge Natalia M. Combs Greene
    Calendar Ten

    NOWHERE is there even the two words “slight evidence”.

  368. #368 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Here is what Judge Greene says on what standard of evidence must be supplied to pass this motion to dismiss:

    The Court disagrees with the argument that there is such a high burden as advanced by the NR Defendants. The standard “likely to succeed on the merits” or likelihood of success on the merits, is a high burden but not as high as suggested by the NR Defendants. As noted, the standard of the likelihood to succeed on the merits, in the context of a preliminary injunction, is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Zirkle v. District of Columbia, 830 A.2d 1250, 1257
    (D.C. 2003).

    The Court is in agreement with the decision issued by Judge Walton on this issue and finds the case law from California (upon which the D. C. Anti-SLAPP Act is modeled)
    instructive. In California, as Judge Walton noted; “…a Plaintiff seeking to show a probability of prevailing on a claim in response to an anti-SLAPP motion must satisfy a standard comparable to that used on a motion for judgment as a matter of law” See Boley v. Atlantic Monthly Group,
    supra. (quoting Price v. Stossel, 620 F. 3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, the Court finds, Plaintiff must present a sufficient legal basis for his claims and if he fails to do so, the motion should be granted.

  369. #369 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    In other words,all the judgements have been saying that Mann has to pass the legal standard for a CRIMINAL claim to bypass the three (so far) motions to dismiss.

    He has passed them all.

    And, as rick said,this is a civil court,not criminal, where the standard of evidence is lower than in criminal court.

    Yet “somehow”, this is what deniers are clinging to with fervour, as if it were more than likely to pass.

  370. #370 John Mashey
    December 28, 2016

    Let us hope that McIntyre, McKitrick, {Wegman, Said, Scott, Rigsby & Reeves} get to testify.

  371. #371 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Maybe the deniers will be afraid that Mann will be able to ask them questions like “Was your 2005 paper a fraud?”and “Did you make 10,000 tests and select only the 100 that looked sort of what you wanted, rejecting the rest?” and “Were you paid to plagiarise your report?” and “Did you lie to the senate committee about how much you were paid by fossil fuel interests, a criminal act in the USA?”. Then ask Steyn “Did you check up on whether these people were lying to you, as you demanded Mann be checked up on?”

    Because if they were lying, even by omission, Steyn not asking questions about THEIR actions and claims would be, yet again, reckless disregard.

    —-

    HOWEVER, as Desertphile said, this case isn’t against Mann and his hockey stick paper, it’s about Steyn’s claims.

    Then again, their lies and frauds were part of the scheme to libel Mann. E.g. get A to tell B that C was a fraud, then if C sues A, they point to B as to blame, and if C sues B, they point to A, and if they’re both sued, they both point to the other.

    Therefore it would be only solvable by prosecuting all bad faith actors jointly and severally for libel.

    Which rather requires finding out if EACH ONE RELIED ON is reliable and clear of distrust…

  372. #372 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “MikeN” querrelously proffers:

    The word libel does not appear in the appeals court ruling.

    What is the legal definition of libel?
    Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

    Hrmmmm….

  373. #373 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, you have shown what I have been explaining. Judge Greene used a different standard, something similar to a motion for judgment. Preponderance of the evidence is not the same as clear and convincing as the appeals court said. You speak of page 22, that is a different case. Appeals court is not Judge Greene. No she didn’t say ‘slight evidence’. She wrote ‘evidence is slight’.

    Appeals court ruling does not say libel, though from your link it is clearly the same as defamation here(printed libel). You seem to be giving weight to ‘recover’ that is not intended in the definitions you post. To show defamation, plaintiff must show actual malice. The whole point of ‘recover’ is that plaintiff has intention of winning some sort of compensation from the defendant, assumed in all cases.

    >“Steyn presumably is expecting an answer along the lines of
    “I made up a fraudulent dataset to show a hockey stick””
    So, apparently not.
    If this was required, then this is admitting that Steyn had NO EVIDENCE of fraud, ergo his claims were a reckless disregard to the truth, yes?

    I think you are missing the point of the questioning. If a prosecutor asks a murderer, “Were you driving on the road to the victim’s house?”, does that mean he does not know the answer to the question, or does not have evidence of the crime?

    There is a third party in the questioning, the jury.

  374. #374 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    My apologies. What I have in quotes above should not have been in quotes. I figured it would be clear it was a summary with things like ‘Case can go forward.’

  375. #375 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Yet again, note “MikeN” now proclaims that what I said is what he said, despite it not being what he said originally.

    This is called “Lying your ass off”.

    Originally “One judge expressly said that Mann has not shown he is likely to succeed”

    Now “Judge Greene used a different standard”

    Ergo, a lying sack of crap.

  376. #376 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Yet more pretending the past isn’t written right there up the screen a bit.

    ” To show defamation, plaintiff must show actual malice”

    Above:
    Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/#comment-640561

  377. #377 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    See also the noteout in a goolge search of “defamation US law”:

    In the United States, federal defamation law is closely tied to the First Amendment. … In short, opinion is not considered defamation in the U.S. That being said, false statements of fact that harm the reputation of an individual or business, aren’t protected under Constitutional Free Speech provisions.

  378. #378 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    And, for defamation per se:

    In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things: Allegations or imputations “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”

  379. #379 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow there is a point I am trying to make where you reinforce my original post, but I keep responding to other posts.
    You quoted Judge Greene as saying preponderance of the evidence, but note above where the appeals court said higher standard than preponderance of the evidence is required.
    It isn’t quite the same as what I was arguing as they were talking about a jury trial, and this is an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss. However, my point is the appeals court is using a higher standard of proof on Mann than Judge Greene for continuing the case.
    Judge Greene said preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence is slight for absolute malice. This would not have been good enough for the appeals court’s standard, which is higher than preponderance of the evidence. It was enough for Judge Greene’s standard. The appeals court’s view of the evidence(which was also different than Greene’s evidence) was different from Judge Greene.
    If Judge Greene has been using the Appeals Court’s standard, the case would have been thrown out. Well not exactly, because I think by the time she made her ruling there was an amended complaint and a new judge.

  380. #380 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    >Note that Judge Greene also indicated that further discovery would likely show evidence of actual malice.

    No she said it might show evidence. However, the appeals court felt that relying on evidence that would be discovered is unacceptable- a different and higher standard.

  381. #381 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, common law definition is not controlling in the courts. Mann must show actual malice.

  382. #382 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    See also Judge Greene’s ruling which concludes:

    The Court disagrees with the argument that there is such a high burden as advanced by the NR Defendants. The standard “likely to succeed on the merits” or likelihood of success on the merits, is a high burden but not as high as suggested by the NR Defendants. As noted, the standard of the likelihood to succeed on the merits, in the context of a preliminary injunction, is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Zirkle v. District of Columbia, 830 A.2d 1250, 1257
    (D.C. 2003).

    The Court is in agreement with the decision issued by Judge Walton on this issue and finds the case law from California (upon which the D. C. Anti-SLAPP Act is modeled)
    instructive. In California, as Judge Walton noted; “…a Plaintiff seeking to show a probability of prevailing on a claim in response to an anti-SLAPP motion must satisfy a standard comparable to that used on a motion for judgment as a matter of law” See Boley v. Atlantic Monthly Group,
    supra. (quoting Price v. Stossel, 620 F. 3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, the Court finds, Plaintiff must present a sufficient legal basis for his claims and if he fails to do so, the motion should be granted.

    Yet “MikeN” insists that this motion was dismissed with slight evidence for the plaintiff.

    Even though the court order requires theplaintiff find onthe preponderance of evidence.

    Which, oddly enough, is the same level of proof required for THIS dismissal, which it also passed.

    And, for the jury case, it will have only to pass the lower case of a civil court, rather than the higher one here.

    EVEN IF “MikeN” had gotten “confused” about this civil/criminal case,that confusion could ONLY have led to thinking that THIS decision was made under a LOWER threshold of evidence than Judge Greene’s one. OPPOSITE to his claim.

  383. #383 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, is Mann a public figure for the purpose of this lawsuit?

  384. #384 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, common law definition is not controlling”

    However, the definition given is the one for the USA.

    please note the distraction technique here.

  385. #385 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    ” Mann must show actual malice.”

    No, Mann does not.

  386. #386 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “but note above where the appeals court said higher standard than preponderance of the evidence is required.”

    On a different argument to dismiss. But on the same arguments to dismiss, the same level of evidence was required.

    AND EXCEEDED.

  387. #387 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “However, the appeals court felt that relying on evidence that would be discovered is unacceptable- a different and higher standard.”

    No, that’s neither a different, nor higher standard. It isn’t even a requirement for evidence. The court is refusing to issue summary judgement because they do not have jurisdiction.

    Well, I think we see where “MikeN” is getting his “confusion” from. He’s reading words and not working out what they say, but what he can make them mean when he stitches them out of context.

  388. #388 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Judge Greene said preponderance of the evidence, and the evidence is slight for absolute malice.”

    If that were true, then according to Greene’s ruling, she would have dismissed the case.

    If she hasn’t dismissed the case, then your claim CANNOT be right, can it?

    Now, did she dismiss the case?

    No. She did not. She approved it going ahead.

  389. #389 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    If FL wants to set you straight, I will let him do so, but at this point you are arguing against the appeals court ruling, which I quoted above.

    dean

    The case is all about data manipulation and whether Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.

    Since it has been reviewed and reviewed by scientists, and stood up to those reviews. from the point of view of the scientific community it isn’t fraudulent.

    It’s only when you get to the science deniers who assert is is fraudulent, and do so without evidence, that you hear there are issues with it.

    This was what the media people are arguing. You shouldn’t be able to bring a libel case for disagreeing with official reports. That should not be the end of the discussion.

    #334 Wow
    Come on, to find Steyn innocent he needs some evidence he already has to find reason to believe there’s an undiscovered fraud going on. Undiscovered, moreover, by four investigations and 12 further reconstructions (plus one done in four days time by the BLOODY JUDGE HIMSELF) that don’t use the same methods or the same proxies, yet all get a hockey stick, several of which Steyn himself KNEW ABOUT *because some he reported on*.

    If he had no reason to believe there was fraud, then he was lying. Either with reckless disregard, or with malice and knowledge of the lie. EITHER of which means libel has been committed.

    We agree on the last part. However, again you are assuming that the investigations should be believed.
    This was my original point, that allowing the case to proceed places the media at risk of having to accept official pronouncements of the government and are not allowed to challenge them.

  390. #390 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Re:383:

    Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/#comment-640561

  391. #391 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “but at this point you are arguing against the appeals court ruling”

    No I am not.

  392. #392 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “This was what the media people are arguing. You shouldn’t be able to bring a libel case for disagreeing with official reports. That should not be the end of the discussion.”

    And since this case isn’t about disagreeing with official reports, WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS?

  393. #393 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “We agree on the last part. However, again you are assuming that the investigations should be believed”

    JEZUZFUCKNUTS.

    Why should we not assume the investigations be correct?

    Because they didn’t give the answer you wanted.

    This is not how justice works.

  394. #394 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “This was my original point, that allowing the case to proceed places the media at risk of having to accept official pronouncements of the government and are not allowed to challenge them.”

    No it doesn’t. AT ALL.

  395. #395 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    What deniers ARE worried about is that libel laws apply to them.

    They want to USE them, yes. Not be held accountable by them, though.

  396. #396 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    >If she hasn’t dismissed the case, then your claim CANNOT be right, can it?

    No it is correct. Like I said before, she used a different meaning(standard) of ‘likely to succeed’ to deny dismissal.
    Even slight evidence was enough to meet the standard. Indeed, it appears even no evidence might have been enough. Again this goes to why I said the first judge expressly said Mann has not shown he is likely to succeed. I can get why you say I am contradicting myself, as the judge did say he is likely to succeed(as the judge understood that phrase to mean). I should have worded that better. I was arguing against your point that all the judges ruled proven defamation. The first judge said evidence is slight for actual malice.

    You continue to cite that web page on libel law, but it does not say that actual malice is not required except for common law which does not apply, nor make any explanation of ‘recover’. I will continue to use the appeals court ruling that says actual malice is required to be proven.

  397. #397 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    “Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity”

    Wow, what is the next sentence on the page you are citing?
    This standard is referred to as “actual malice,”

    In back to back posts: Wow says
    “And since this case isn’t about disagreeing with official reports, ”

    Why should we not assume the investigations be correct?

    Because they didn’t give the answer you wanted.

    This is not how justice works.

  398. #398 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “MikeN” on what Judge Greene says:

    >Note that Judge Greene also indicated that further discovery would likely show evidence of actual malice.

    No she said it might show evidence.

    What Judge Greene says on what Judge Greene said:

    At this stage, the evidence is slight as to whether there was actual malice. There is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false. Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the NR Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the NR Defendants. Thus, it is fair to say that the NR Defendants continue to criticize Plaintiff due to a reckless disregard for truth. Criticism of Plaintiff’s work may be fair and he and his work may be put to the test. Where, however the NR Defendants consistently claim that Plaintiff’s work is inaccurate (despite being proven as accurate) then there is a strong probability that the NR Defendants disregarded the falsity of their statements and did so with reckless disregard.

  399. #399 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    So your logic as I understand it is that justice works by assuming the investigations are correct.

  400. #400 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, what is the next sentence on the page you are citing?”

    And what are the sentences I quote, “MikeN”?

  401. #401 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, could you point me to this judge’s reconstruction done in four days? This is the first I’ve heard of it. I am really curious.

  402. #402 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “So your logic as I understand it is that justice works by assuming the investigations are correct.”

    Yes.

    Otherwise we would not have courts,since we could not assume that someone found guilty was actually guilty and should be put in prison, since we’d be assuming the investigation was correct.

    Indeed it would make a farce of demanding an investigation, since no matter what the result, it could not be assumed correct.

  403. #403 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Is Mann a public figure?

  404. #404 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, could you point me to this judge’s reconstruction done in four days? ”

    With some work, yes.

    “This is the first I’ve heard of it.”

    Yeah, I figure.

    “I am really curious.”

    I doubt it. It’s not worth the effort, since you wouldn’t accept it anyway, and yo really *aren’t* interested.

  405. #405 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Like I said before, she used a different meaning(standard) of ‘likely to succeed’ to deny dismissal.”

    No she didn’t.

  406. #406 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Wow, what is the alternative to ‘recover’ing in a case that you win? I think you are giving that word too much importance in making your claims. The page you keep linking says the opposite of what you claim it says if recover is an irrelevant detail as I believe it is, based on the introduction.

  407. #407 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    re 403, see 390.

  408. #408 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    “So your logic as I understand it is that justice works by assuming the investigations are correct.”

    Yes.

    Otherwise we would not have courts,since we could not assume that someone found guilty was actually guilty

    Should George Zimmerman be able to sue Black Lives Matter if they call him a murderer of Trayvon Martin?

  409. #409 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Wow, what is the alternative to ‘recover’ing in a case that you win?”

    That it is libel. You just don’t get any payment except default court costs (possibly, this is entirely up to the courts), and any special payments, except for defamation per se, where some special payments can be automatically assumed.

  410. #410 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    You keep referring to that quote, but don’t answer if this applies to Mann. Is he a public figure?

  411. #411 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    re 408, should you dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?

  412. #412 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Re 410, see 407.

  413. #413 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    Why do you say the appeals court has no jurisdiction? The court ruling spends a lot of time on this and said they did have jurisdiction. They wouldn’t have ruled on the merits if they didn’t.

  414. #414 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Why do you say the appeals court has no jurisdiction?”

    Because they cannot issue summary judgement for the plaintiff when sitting in a case for dismisal.

  415. #415 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    #409, the page you link makes no mention of this alternative. Indeed it appears to be contradicted by:
    a defendant who publishes a false and defamatory communication about a private individual is liable to the individual only if the defendant acts with actual malice (applying the standard under New York Times v. Sullivan) or acts negligently in failing to ascertain whether a statement was false or defamatory.

    Nothing about recovery. Your belief is that without showing actual malice, you can go to trial, win, and get a judgement of libel(which is a subset of defamation) but not recover any damages. Do you have a link to this anywhere?

  416. #416 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Actually, this one was an appeal against the motion for dismissal being denied.

    Since Mann hasn’t moved for summary judgement, there’s nothing allowing the court to proceed nstead of a jury.

  417. #417 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    “Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity. This standard is referred to as “actual malice,”

  418. #418 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    Your track record of reading things should have led you to consider your “appears” more than *slightly* unreliable.

  419. #419 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity. This standard is referred to as “actual malice,”

  420. #420 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    ““Wow, what is the alternative to ‘recover’ing in a case that you win?”

    That it is libel.”

    Moreover, if the retraction is not made, and publicly enough (compared to the visibility and penetration of the libel) then the loser is now in contempt of court and will face prison time and/or big fines.

    This may also open up a pro-forma claim for special damages too.

  421. #421 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    In back to back posts: Wow says
    “And since this case isn’t about disagreeing with official reports, ”

    Yes, this case is about Steyn libeling Mann.

    “Why should we not assume the investigations be correct?”

    This is about the investigation into Mann to see if he was a fraud.

    Goodness. Back to back quotes about two different cases. And “MikeN” thinks this is awesome enough to post in blank verse.

  422. #422 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    And remember, none of the bad faith actors libeling Steyn can profess lack of knowledge of the investigations, cf Greene:

    Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the NR Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the work of Plaintiff is sound), it would be the NR Defendants.

  423. #423 Chris O'Neill
    December 28, 2016

    I have not given up on malice or reckless disregard.

    Maybe, but it is just so funny that clowns like Dan were oh so confident that the public figure defence would win that everything else was irrelevant.

    Not any more ha ha!

  424. #424 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    #420, do you have any links to this libel finding?
    The page you cite makes no mention of
    Moreover, if the retraction is not made, and publicly enough (compared to the visibility and penetration of the libel) then the loser is now in contempt of court and will face prison time and/or big fines.

    This may also open up a pro-forma claim for special damages too.

  425. #425 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    You keep putting that quote, as if ‘cannot recover’ has special definitive meaning. Then where is the other situation, where they can win without recovering? I see nothing on that page about that.

  426. #426 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    No.

    Go read up on the law. BEFORE making claims on it.

  427. #427 Wow
    December 28, 2016

    “You keep putting that quote, as if ‘cannot recover’ has special definitive meaning”

    Given it to you before.

    “Then where is the other situation, where they can win without recovering?”

    Given that to you too.

  428. #428 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    “Then where is the other situation, where they can win without recovering?”

    Given that to you too.

    You have explained it, but given no links to substantiate that.

  429. #429 MikeN
    December 28, 2016

    You also have not said if Mann is a public figure. If he is not, then the quote you keep presenting is worthless.

  430. #430 Desertphile
    December 28, 2016

    1) The judge is allowed to mandate a directed verdict. The defendants are hoping they will get a jury of morons, but the jury can be ordered by the judge to find the defendants guilty or not guilty.

    2) The defendants know that the financial rewards of losing the case will be greater than winning it. The defendants depend of their cult followers forking over “donations,” buying propaganda, attending anti-science conferences, etc., to “protect freedom.” Losing the case will increase that revenue, not decrease it.

    3) The defendants know that losing the case via summary judgement will be the larger increase in the amount of money their cult followers fork over, as the assertion “The judge was corrupt!” is worth more than “The jury was in on it!”

    4) It is politically correct for Dr. Mann to oppose every attempt for a summary judgement.

    5) The defendants will never settle the case: doing so would decrease the money their cult followers fork over.

    6) Dr Mann is likely to receive $1 in compensatory damages, plus his actual expenses for the case, plus a published apology from the defendants.

    7) Punitive damages will only be applied if the judge finds that the defendants have learned nothing from the experience, show no contrition, and/or refuse to apologize to Dr Mann.

  431. #431 Brainstorms
    December 28, 2016

    I really want to hear the defendants insist that discovery is necessary on the grounds that they may not have had any evidence of fraud when they claimed that Mann committed fraud, but they knew that in the future, when they were sued for making such a libelous claim, they would be able to conduct discovery at that time and find the evidence they needed, covering them ex post facto.

  432. #432 John Mashey
    December 29, 2016

    Steyn/NR is real, but in some sense a sideshow.

    See Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report.
    pp.25-32. Myron Ebell (usually at CEI) was involved from 1998, but especially in the recruitment of McKitrick & McIntyre, etc,leadup to the Wegman affair.
    GMI & CEI were the main partners in manufacturing the attack on the hockey stick, and of course MM005 was a deceptive fraud, as was McIntyre’s blog post from 03/16/05. In academe, fabrication.falsication/false citation.
    It also depended on an unsupported (and nonsencial) claim by David Deming, from Fed Singer’s website, published 3 months before actual publication in a “dog astrology journal”, i.e.,
    The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a Dog They rearranged the archive, but this is link to a good list as of 2015 for people’s perusal to assess the credibility.

    Anyway, I didn’t notice NR, but CEI’s fingerprirnts were all over the attack on the hockey stick from the early 2000s.

  433. #433 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    Re 429, I have answered. See 412

    “You have explained it”

    Yes, I have. Which means your claim I hadn’t was a lie.

  434. #434 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    4) It is politically <bwise for Dr. Mann to oppose every attempt for a summary judgement.

    FTFY, we don’t want to trigger “MikeN” or have himpself as RickA get triggered.

    RWNJs are REALLY thin skinned and easily triggered.

  435. #435 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    As a public figure, Mann is not going to be able to get damages for defamation per se, but COULD, in theory, get compensation for possible lost earnings, after all, he has been unable to continue with his normal workload with this case dragging on, and all the time his career was affected by the accusation, reducing his chances at promotion or wage rises, even absent the lowered output that every active professor is measured on for “performance”.

    And even his professional standing has been affected by this lowered output. The professional standing of a scientist is the number of papers produced and the numbers of citations they get. ANY professor, tenured or not, knows how pay negotiations go for any and all professors. And the time taken to battle this case has reduced his metrics for pay negotiations.

    Proving actual malice would allow this to be argued as part of the settlement in a guilty verdict from the court jury. And this judge considers that clear and convincing evidence for that has been presented.

    FLW, talking as a lawyer, will not use the imprecision of laymen, therefore will not say that Steyn can’t really be expected to turn up anything new that would reverse this strong statement, but he can’t concieve of any such evidence. Hence “Steyn really can’t come forward with any new evidence” is a conclusion, but one a lawyer would not permit them to say when speaking with professional weight.

    I do not disagree with that prim reserve, but it sure as shit doesn’t stop rick going full retard and claiming false equivalence.

    And even rick’s claims don’t hold up. Even just taking the first one, which may be the least thought out, but could also be the strongest option, it being the first one to be spewed out, fails any form of reasonable request.

    “Have you made a different one, earlier”.

    Which is supposed to be what? For a start, a computer program is written as a prototype and then scrapped as you find out what is feasible to be done and whether performance is acceptable. A prototype is not evidence of bad programming,but good programming.

    But there’s no reason to expect there to be one that shows anything but a hockey stick, since every reconstruction gets the same shape. And *even if* you concede MM2005’s claims, they insist that you would get a HS from any suitably random data.

    EVEN THEN, the existence of a previous graph, where there’s no reason to expect one, is not evidence of manipulation of data or deliberate fraud from Mann. So this would have to be followed up with yet more leading questions. Hence such queries need a reason to ask, just as if you were doing this to a witness in the stand. the Judge WILL ask if you’re going anywhere with the questioning and if you can’t show reasonable expectation of a basal claim relevant to the defence’s case, you will be told to stop it and get on with the job, and stop wasting the court’s time and the time of the witness.

    The very first “question” rick can come up with only appears to be relevant if they can squeeze in a “Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?”. And even if they aren’t trying that, the question is just vexatious and an abuse of process.

    Hell, it’s not even a fishing expedition. It’s just “I’m going to make you dance to my tune! You’ll regret ever starting this!!!!”.

    Courts don’t like it when your list of questions look like an attempt to bring extrajudicial punishment to the claimant.

  436. #436 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    Brainstorms, their insistence that they get to ferret out “truths” from Mann to show he’s a fraud is, as I’ve said earlier, a bad attempt in court. If the defendants “knew” that Mann had committed fraud, despite the investigations and independent verification of the result, then they should have brought a case against Mann. AND IN THAT CASE, they would be able to fish for evidence that the source of this knowledge was true and accurate.

    However, they did not. They just went and claimed it anyway.

    Since Steyn et al make a positive claim (Mann committed fraud), they have to prove their case.

    Since Mann makes a positive claim (Steyn libeled him), he has to prove his case.

    Steyn has to have evidence for their claims, and three judges have accepted that it’s reasonable or even clear and convincing that he has been libeled.

    If Steyn had evidence they kept quiet, they’ve deliberately strung this case out, a case that costs court time on something they could have prosecuted instead (remember the constitutional right to a speedy trial?), and time from both parties, one of which (Mann) hasn’t got this information to expedite the case.

    Mann already has evidence, clear evidence that we can all see, that libel has happened. THERE IS NO QUESTION that this has happened. Every attempt otherwise is based on “there could be…” baseless conjectures. We do not take “could be’s”, because that is an admission that we have no evidence for it being the case.

    And no, FL, this isn’t the court talking. “We” are not the court, not the lawyers, not the jury, not the judges. Since we don’t get to punish Steyn for libel, we do not have to presuppose innocence by “he could”s in the face of plain evidence of what “he has”.

    By their actions, the defendants in this case want to make this a case against Mann for committing fraud where they don’t have to have any evidence, and where they don’t have to pay to bring the case, and don’t have to prove anything, Mann has to prove himself innocent (because, like, he brought the suit, man. We’re innocent of being wrong about his fraud unless you can prove it).

    That there is clear barratry and abuse of the court.

  437. #437 Desertphile
    December 29, 2016

    WOW:“FTFY, we don’t want to trigger “MikeN” or have himpself as RickA get triggered. RWNJs are REALLY thin skinned and easily triggerer”

    Good morning!

    I use the phrase “politically correct” the way it was used by the woman who coined the phrase in 1984 (Amy Goodman): doing what is morally, ethically, and legally right regardless of political expediency.

    It is also politically advantageous for Dr. Mann to win the litigation via jury trial. One judge deciding Mann was libeled is not as politically advantageous to science and the defense of scientists than 7, 9, or 12 jury members deciding the same thing. Even when it costs more time and money, it is better for scientists as a whole later on— which is the entire reason Dr Mann sued.

  438. #438 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    Well, the rightwing need their safe spaces. Though to separate them from “the left”, they’re called “Free speech zones”.

    Though it does work for Mann and science if this goes to guilty or summary judgement because this indicates that you’re NOT allowed to just go summarily make shit up and go “But I believed it was that way!”, just like Philip Green can’t get away with telling shareholders that he BELIEVED that it was totally legit to stick a knife into BHS to get some cash out. Doesn’t fly.

    And some morons demand that this is PERFECTLY FINE as long as it’s the bit of government and the people you disagree with that’s getting the shaft.

    This will indicate that they’re not THAT privileged.

  439. #439 Desertphile
    December 29, 2016

    WOW: “As a public figure, Mann is not going to be able to get damages for defamation per se, but COULD, in theory, get compensation for possible lost earnings, after all, he has been unable to continue with his normal workload with this case dragging on, and all the time his career was affected by the accusation, reducing his chances at promotion or wage rises, even absent the lowered output that every active professor is measured on for “performance”.”

    Given how little he is paid for his work, I suspect his lost time due to fighting the libel might be worth a few tens of thousands of dollars. (The poor bastard.)

    Am I correct in recalling that Dr Mann has said he does not want “damages” awarded other than his actual legal expenses?

  440. #440 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    He’s not applied for special damages. It’s not something you can bring forward until the court has made its judgement. You set up for claims of redress after the court has made its decision and the judge asks something along the lines of “What are you claiming in damages?”

  441. #441 Desertphile
    December 29, 2016

    WOW: “Brainstorms, their insistence that they get to ferret out “truths” from Mann to show he’s a fraud is, as I’ve said earlier, a bad attempt in court. If the defendants “knew” that Mann had committed fraud, despite the investigations and independent verification of the result, then they should have brought a case against Mann. AND IN THAT CASE, they would be able to fish for evidence that the source of this knowledge was true and accurate.”

    Yes, but far less entertaining! 🙂 If the cultists had just printed an apology when Dr Mann ordered them to, we would all be on Facebook right now looking at images of kittens.

  442. #442 Brainstorms
    December 29, 2016

    Even if the defendants never wanted to bring suit against Mann in court for fraud, but were content with “prosecuting him in public” based on evidence they possessed that would protect them from libel charges, then they still possess this evidence after all these years. So why would they need discovery now, when they are being sued for libel?

    Do they need to ask Mann, “Please give us a copy of the evidence we’ve sitting on all this time that shows you’re guilty”? Why go to the expense? They had it then, they have it now. Skip the expense of discovery and just present it at the appropriate point during their trial. If it was good enough to make the claim then, it’s good enough now in court. Nothing more is needed.

    But if it’s not good enough in court now, it wasn’t good enough then to make a claim of fraud. Which means they did libel Mann at the time. If they need more material now through the process of discovery, then they’re fishing for information they didn’t have at the time of their original claims of fraud. Which “proves” they couldn’t have known then, nor have had any reason to believe then, that Mann committed fraud.

    In other words, the mere act of insisting on discovery on the part of the defendants makes them look guilty.

  443. #443 BBD
    December 29, 2016

    The case is all about data manipulation and whether Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.

    Obviously not, or subsequent work would not have substantially confirmed it.

    Contrarians in their noxious bubble seem oblivious to this ground truth.

  444. #444 Desertphile
    December 29, 2016

    “The case is all about data manipulation and whether Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.”

    How very odd that everyone involved in the case has stated the exact opposite. But then, it’s “ricka” who made this freaky and false assertion.

  445. #445 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 29, 2016

    On some level the…

    “…case is all about data manipulation and whether Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.”

    That is to say, in the defamatory ooze of the slithery, squirmy fever-swamp that is home to The Conspirassssssssssy Whisperers.

    Fixed it.

  446. #446 MikeN
    December 29, 2016

    Wow, other than your assertions of not needing to prove actual malice, you have given no links to verify this. If what you say about not needing to prove actual malice were true, then I would have to rethink the case. So far, the only link you have provided contradicts what you say. Do you have any links about being able to win without showing actual malice?

  447. #447 MikeN
    December 29, 2016

    In their brief, Mann claims damages of at least the court’s minimum amount.

  448. #448 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    “then I would have to rethink the case.”

    You never would, “Mike”.

    “Wow, other than your assertions of not needing to prove actual malice, you have given no links to verify this.”

    I did. See 433.

    The fact I’ve left a trail of a half dozen posts or more merely indicates how you will never bother to listen.

    And your complaints are easily ignorable when looking at the pile of crap YOUR “arguments” are when lit by actual reality rather than your “spin” on what it should mean.

    See #398

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2016/12/22/michael-mann-wins-court-decision/#comment-640608

  449. #449 BBD
    December 29, 2016

    #445 OA

    Yes.

    Insssinuation, my dear.

  450. #450 MikeN
    December 29, 2016

    So no links. I think I’ll stick with the appeals court ruling that said actual malice has to be proven. If you can find such a link, then I’ll concede all the judges have found strong evidence that Mann would win his case.

  451. #451 Wow
    December 29, 2016

    No, there are links. See 448.

    Follow the trail. What? A lot of clicking? Well you should have listened in the first place, you stupid cucksucker..

  452. #452 stewart longman
    Calgary, Canada
    December 29, 2016

    RickA, I see you have questions about principal components analysis. For what it’s worth, I have written 9 papers on principal components analysis and its applications, with over 500 citations (which means that other people have read the papers and found them useful). I’m happy to try and answer your questions, and refer you to resources that you can read on your own, as well. Perhaps this will help you on this point.

  453. #453 Desertphile
    December 29, 2016

    “RickA, I see you have questions about principal components analysis. For what it’s worth, I have written 9 papers on principal components analysis and its applications, with over 500 citations (which means that other people have read the papers and found them useful). I’m happy to try and answer your questions, and refer you to resources that you can read on your own, as well. Perhaps this will help you on this point.”

    Dozens of people have already explained it to “ricka” many scores of times; it would be utterly pointless for you to try it again. “Ricka” is learning-impaired.

  454. #454 Desertphile
    December 29, 2016

    “The JSE is the quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of the SSE. Since 1987, the JSE has published original research on the horizons of science.”

    Thank you for the link; I’m looking at the web site, and it’s amazing! Silly! Hysterically funny! I love this part:

    “… the Society’s mission: to provide a professional forum for critical discussion of topics that are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science….”

    That’s right; astrology is still being ignored and/or poorly studied and should still be given a chance—- 5,000+ years hasn’t been enough. More than 30 “peer reviewed ‘articles'” listed about astrology.

    And humans being abducted by space aliens. More than 50 “articles” (I quit counting).

    And “free will” is like human-caused climate change; you have it if you believe hard enough.

    “Energy is not Conserved: Connections among Consciousness, Thermodynamics, and String Theory.”

    “Six Slides That Will Change Your Mind about Climate
    Change” did not.

    “The hypothesis that Sasquatch is a type of Homo sapiens has found increasing support in recent years even in the midst of controversy. Therefore, the old approach of putting them in the cross hairs of a high-powered rifle to secure a holotype increasingly appears murderously inappropriate.”

    GOOD GODS, I LOVE THIS WEB SITE!

  455. #455 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    Wow, you provide a quote from Judge Greene’s ruling which makes no mention of winning a case of libel without proving actual malice. It is a restatement of what you have already said and on which we agree. She ruled that they might get evidence in discovery, and Mann has shown some evidence, and giving him the benefit of the doubt he has shown enough for the case to move forward. The part you quote about reckless disregard is the definition of actual malice.

  456. #456 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    ” She ruled that they might get evidence in discovery, ”

    Oh lying again, “MikeN”. No, she said more evidence.

    And way to miss the point, retard. YOU made a claim about what Judge Greene said, and I pointed out what she said in a quote, and the result was entirely different.

    Ergo, you had never read any link to what Judge Greene said, only read what denier bloogers (probably vlockh) said was claimed.

    And missing out the definition of actual malice? Lie again. The definition was there. As was “to recover from”. What proving actual malice allows. With a link to the site I got it from, which you never read, because there it talks about what recovery is in this context.

  457. #457 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    But you’ve never wanted reality, have you. Even when you ape a change of mind, you’ll never actually let that change what you think has happened. After all, you have your secret sauce.

  458. #458 FLwolverine
    December 30, 2016

    #435 – Wow – What is your basis for saying this? Do you have a source or citation?

    “As a public figure, Mann is not going to be able to get damages for defamation per se, but COULD, in theory, get compensation for possible lost earnings, after all, he has been unable to continue with his normal workload with this case dragging on, and all the time his career was affected by the accusation, reducing his chances at promotion or wage rises, even absent the lowered output that every active professor is measured on for “performance”.”

  459. #459 FLwolverine
    December 30, 2016

    #236 – MikeN – “The media organizations in their brief say that they are mostly opposed on the policy issues, but that they are filing on behalf of the idea that reports by government organizations should not be used as a means to bring libel actions and silence critics.”

    I haven’t seen exactly how the media brief states this argument. If they mean a government organization can’t bring a libel suit against media and citizens who criticize that organization’s report, then they are right – freedom to criticize the government (and its reports) are the essence of the First Amendment.

    If they mean a plaintiff can’t use a report by a government organization to prove defendants have defamed the plaintiff (not the government organization), then that’s bogus (to use a technical term 🙂 A plaintiff has to be able to use even government reports to prove facts. Assuming for the sake of argument that the National Science Foundation report is a “government organization report”, the Mann case clearly falls into this category. His claim is that the defendants defamed him, and he’s using the NSF report to prove it. If the defendants lose, it will be because they defamed Mann, not because they criticized the NSF report (or the Penn State report, for that matter, but calling that a government organization report is quite a stretch).

  460. #460 FLwolverine
    December 30, 2016

    Wow – you say that Mann does not need to prove “actual malice” in order to prove libel/defamation, and proof of “actual malice” is only necessary to recover damages.

    This is wrong. You are misreading both the US Law Digest website and the appellate court decision. When the Law Digest says a public figure cannot “recover” unless he proves actual malice, it means he can’t “recover” anything because he can’t prove defamation without proving actual malice. Proving the other elements of a defamation claim without proving actual malice gets the public figure nothing – he can’t win his case.

    This is entirely consistent with the appellate court decision. On page 53 they list the elements to be proven:

    “To succeed on a claim for defamation, a plaintiff must prove “(1) that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) that the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party; (3) that the defendant’s fault in publishing the statement [met the requisite standard];[33] and (4) either that the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or that its publication caused the plaintiff special harm.”

    On page 80 they state that the “requisite standard” in this case is actual malice, because the parties have agreed that Mann is a public figure for purposes of this lawsuit.

  461. #461 FLwolverine
    December 30, 2016

    Wow, Mike N – you guys can keep arguing about what Judge Greene said about slight evidence if you want to, but that’s pretty much irrelevant at this point. The appellate court’s decision is now controlling. In footnote 52 to their opinion, they said:

    “In this case, the trial court characterized the evidence of actual malice as “slight” and as not amounting to a showing by clear and convincing evidence, but stated that it was “sufficient to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of ‘actual malice.’” We are not constrained by the trial court’s conclusion in this regard, as the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law that we review de novo.”

    They went on to say that if Judge Greene thought the evidence to prove actual malice was “slight”, then she would be correct to permit “targeted discovery” to allow the plaintiff to find additional evidence to support the claim.

    But that’s all moot in this case, because the appellate court decision controls.

  462. #462 Desertphile
    December 30, 2016

    No where do I find evidence that any of the judges did her own temperature reconstruction. I wonder if WOW misunderstood something, or saw documents I have been unable to find.

  463. #463 BBD
    December 30, 2016

    Thanks again to FLWolverineM/b> for clarifying points of law.

    Much appreciated.

  464. #464 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 30, 2016

    Yeah, you have to watch every word in the land of the lawyers.

    As always, we can turn to that great compendium of wisdom “The Big Bang Theory” for guidance in this matter:

    —- snip —-

    Sheldon: Good morning, Your Honour. Dr. Sheldon Cooper appearing in pro se. That is to say, representing himself.

    Judge: I know what it means. I went to law school.

    Sheldon: And yet you wound up in traffic court. Anyway, if it would please the court, I’d like to begin with an opening statement.

    Judge: The court would advise you to make it quick, as the court had a dicey-looking breakfast burrito this morning and just took an Imodium.

    Sheldon: Very well, a quick opening statement. Like a milking stool, my case rests on three legs. I will demonstrate that I was improperly instructed in driving by a woman whose lack of respect for society borders on the sociopathic. I will argue that the emergency met the legal doctrine of quod est necessarium est licitum, that which is necessary is legal. But first, I will raise a Sixth Amendment issue. I’m unable to confront my accuser, a non-human entity, to wit, a camera. So, to sum up, improper instruction, quod est necessarium est licitum, Sixth Amendment. My milk stool is complete.

    Judge: Impressive.

    Sheldon: Thank you.

    Judge: Guilty. Pay the cashier.

    Sheldon: I object. You’re completely ignoring the law.

    Judge: No, I’m following the law. I’m ignoring you.

    Sheldon: Really? I would point out that I am at the top of my profession, while you preside over the kiddy table of yours.

    Judge: Dr. Cooper, before I find you in contempt and throw you in jail, I’m going to give you a chance to apologize for that last remark.

    Sheldon: I am a scientist. I never apologize for the truth.

    Scene: A police cell. Three people sit on a bench inside. Sheldon points at the one on the end.

    Sheldon: That’s my spot.

    —- snip —-
    (Series 03 Episode 16)

  465. #465 FLwolverine
    December 30, 2016

    BBD – you are welcome. I learn a lot from you and others so I like to contribute where I can.

    Applesauce – ah, but wait until you need one!

  466. #466 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2016

    RickA’s middle name is Sheldon???

  467. #467 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 30, 2016

    FLwolverine @~465

    Indeed. After all, Mann is relying on lawyers and rightly so–which is why I refrain from bashing them as a whole.

    Even the brilliant Dr. Cooper goes down in flames trying to defend himself.
    🙂

    Law is highly verbal, procedural, and complex. Lots of ways to get tripped up by professional players and hustlers.

  468. #468 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2016

    Even the brilliant Dr. Cooper goes down in flames from a haughty, disrespectful attitude (and mouth).

    (Okay, it’s great comedy, and we all love the characters, but really… Insulting your judge is hardly counts as a brilliant strategy of self-defense. Duh.)

    Also, Law is highly formalized and ritualistic.

  469. #469 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 30, 2016

    In Cooper’s case, he goes down because he is over-the-top arrogant. Everything that he does pretty much follows from that. You could argue that it stems from Aspergers, though the show’s producer denies that that is part of his character. (And his mother had him tested!)

    “Also, Law is highly formalized and ritualistic.”
    And…?

    You can criticize the profession, or call it a necessary evil, but FLwolverine seems to be a pretty decent sort, for instance. Not that I get the baseball thing, but whatever. That’s just me.

  470. #470 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2016

    And…?

    Failure to recognize that and kow-tow to it can also get you tripped up.

    Yes, FLW seems a decent chap. I had a lawyer friend who used to bemoan the plethora of bad lawyers that gave him a bad name (by association).

  471. #471 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    Wow, you continue to ignore the point. I was not arguing about recovery, but the opposite case. I would have accepted it if FL had said you were right, but instead he confirmed my view.

    FL, I agree lower court’s view of evidence does not apply. I was arguing against Wow’s claim that all judges declared proven defamation.
    I missed the part on appeals court said would have been correct to allow discovery. Let’s follow that path, where the trial judge is using the correct standard as declared by the appeals court. Does this mean Judge Greene denies the motion to dismiss, or first conducts discovery before ruling?

  472. #472 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    Desertphile, the judge’s doing her own reconstruction is surprising, but the story sounds vaguely familiar, so I suspect Wow isn’t entirely confused.

  473. #473 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    FL Wolverine, if Mann can use the government reports to prove defamation, then it means the media organizations are required to accept the results of the government reports, on pain of facing a libel lawsuit. I realize it is a stretch to declare Penn State as THE GOVERNMENT, and presumably at least some of the investigations are not government based.
    In this case, there are people who believe Mann has committed fraud, and declare so. They believe the investigative reports are invalid, and even this was published alongside the fraud statement(technically CEI never published ‘fraud’). Now the courts are declaring you cannot publish this statement because the investigations’ results are the final word.

    The media groups do not think Mann has committed fraud and accept the results of the investigations(I suspect even Fox News). However, they do not like the precedent that investigations made by some can prevent speech about public figures that goes against the results of the investigation.

    Jonathan Adler gave some examples in his link in #204.
    Could an acquittal(or failure to indict which is what these investigations are) mean you cannot publish that a public figure has committed a crime?

    How about if someone wished to accuse Apple of impropriety like child labor but the Chinese have issued a report clearing FoxConn?

  474. #474 Obstreperous Applesauce
    December 30, 2016

    Fair enough. The court needs to maintain order and respect if its authority is to be recognized.

    Cooper over estimates his abilities on more than one level. What’s missing from the transcript is how the judge was actually played. Sheldon doesn’t seriously get under his skin until after he has already passed judgement.

    But I guess I’m in danger of trying to “explain” humor and dragging the conversation too far OT– for which apologies. The point should never-the-less be fairly obvious, that DK syndrome doesn’t just apply to people talking about climate science.

    To paraphrase FLW, one shouldn’t let PITA RickA bait one.

  475. #475 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    “No where do I find evidence that any of the judges did her own temperature reconstruction.”

    It isn’t these libel cases, desertphile. Its the data reconstruction cases that steyn and deners insist is “not evidence” because they’re just wrong, ‘cos AGW is a scam, must be. A blog said so.

  476. #476 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    FLW, from the media amicus brief, starting on page 20.
    The fact that certain official panels backed Mann’s
    methodology – facts that were not only disclosed in the challenged publications but in fact formed the basis for them – cannot allow him to silence his critics in a defamation claim. Under the First Amendment, the government is not the final arbiter of truth with the power to foreclose further challenge to its policies.

  477. #477 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    “FL Wolverine, if Mann can use the government reports to prove defamation”

    So nobody is allowed to use the court rulings either? They are government institutions?

    But you’re talking out your ass anyway: there must be evidence that shows Mann committed fraud, or Steyn libeled him, Mann doesn’t have to prove he’s innocent. Steyn, having made the accusations, must prove them.

  478. #478 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    “Wow, you continue to ignore the point.”

    You ignore the point. Mann doesn’t have to prove actual malice to get this ruled defamation.

  479. #479 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    “Wow – you say that Mann does not need to prove “actual malice” in order to prove libel/defamation, and proof of “actual malice” is only necessary to recover damages.

    This is wrong. ”

    no, but it may not be valid in certain states, since this isn’t a federal issue.

  480. #480 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    FLW, explain to “MikeN” here wat recover means in this court context.

    not that he’ll listen you on it cos he “knows” that Mann is a fraud. vlockh has told him.

  481. #481 Wow
    December 30, 2016

    ” cannot allow him to silence his critics in a defamation claim”

    It wont. it will stop him making libelous shit up about Mann, though.
    He can still claim he “thinks” or “in his opinion”, so he’s not silenced, but he can’t libel Mann

  482. #482 Brainstorms
    December 30, 2016

    if Mann can use the government reports to prove defamation

    No, Mann is not using any reports to prove defamation. The reports do not in any way prove defamation of anyone; Mann is using them in an affirmative manner instead. The reports demonstrate that what Mann did was valid and not fraudulent. But they don’t prove defamation, so he cannot use them in that way.

    then it means the media organizations are required to accept the results of the government reports

    No, it doesn’t. This is neither expressed nor implied. Media organizations are allowed to publish any opinion of any reports, properly indicated. What it means is that no media organization may make unsubstantiated claims of fraud for the purposes of character assassination and defamation (regardless of motivation).

    on pain of facing a libel lawsuit.

    There is no pain of facing a libel lawsuit if they do not commit libel. It is obviously quite possible to voice a disparaging opinion in print, just as it’s obviously quite possible to make claims of fact that are false and defamatory.

    Why do you have so much trouble telling the difference, MikeN? This can be explained clearly such that a 5-year-old can grasp it. What’s your issue on this concept?

    In this case, there are people who believe Mann has committed fraud, and declare so.

    They declared it as a fact, which means that they’d better have proof of such a factual declaration, or (when a jury agrees) they are guilty of libel.

    They believe the investigative reports are invalid, and even this was published alongside the fraud statement

    They did not publish “We believe that …” If they had, this discussion wouldn’t exist. You do get the distinction between “We believe that this is invalid” and “This is fraud”, don’t you?

    (technically CEI never published ‘fraud’).

    “Technically”? Really, MikeN? Are you that much of a weasel? If someone “technically” burned your house down, are we okay to say that the arsonist “felt that MikeN’s house was combustionally challenged”? So he’s not really guilty, then, is he, if he just “felt that it needed some burning”, right?

    Now the courts are declaring you cannot publish this statement because the investigations’ results are the final word.

    Nothing of the sort has been said. Why are you MAKING THINGS UP, MikeN? Do you have an honesty problem?

    The media groups do not think Mann has committed fraud and accept the results of the investigations(I suspect even Fox News).

    Maybe yes, maybe no. But –and get this– what the media groups think is irrelevant.

    However, they do not like the precedent that investigations made by some can prevent speech about public figures that goes against the results of the investigation.

    That’s not the issue at hand, MikeN. That’s not why there’s a lawsuit.

    Could an acquittal(or failure to indict which is what these investigations are) mean you cannot publish that a public figure has committed a crime?

    This is not a criminal lawsuit. It is a civil lawsuit. There is no indictment.

    Yes, you can publish that a public figure has committed a crime. You’d better be able to back up what you say, or you may end up in court.

    How about if someone wished to accuse Apple of impropriety like child labor but the Chinese have issued a report clearing FoxConn?

    MikeN, do you wish to tie Apple’s hands so that they cannot defend themselves against a competitor or a disgruntled former customer from printing false accusations of impropriety for the purposes of damaging their business and dissuading potential customers from buying their products?

    Why?

    And how would you feel about it if this attack were being leveled against YOUR company, impacting YOUR ability to make a living, smearing YOUR name in public? You wish to tie your own hands against defending yourself?

    Why?

  483. #483 John Mashey
    United States
    December 30, 2016

    FLW knows what he’s talking about.

    I think the various reports are relevant to defamation, since they bear on the “reckless disregard” element of “actual malice.”

    Steyn’s book mentions Ed Wegman a few times, and the next has various odd connections with Mann cases.

    There are good lawyers around and I am fortunate to know some, including those who defended me last year as Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, Milt Johns Sue John Mashey For $2 Million. That was really a defamation claim masquerading as tortious interference with contract, and it strangely connected with the Mann case.
    FLW may find the writeup amusing.

  484. #484 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    Brainstorms, there are multiple arguments going on at once, but I started in this thread with what the media were arguing. Sure theirs is not the last word on the subject, but I felt it was worth highlighting.
    Of course I wouldn’t like it if I had a company and people were lying about me. However, not liking what other people say is not a basis for taking them to court. Now lets say the accusations made about my company are invalid, but these attacks keep coming. So I arrange for my accountant to hire an outside investigator who issues a report clearing me. The people attacking me think the outside investigator did a poor job. I wouldn’t like it, but I don’t think I’d have a court case to make against them, especially if I qualify as a public figure.

    (technically CEI never published ‘fraud’).
    “Technically”? Really, MikeN? Are you that much of a weasel?

    I put it in parentheses. Really what I am arguing is stronger than what the defendants are claiming(weaseling out as you say). I am saying you can publish ‘Michael Mann committed fraud’, while the defendants are trying to claim a weaker meaning that what they wrote was opinion. Just wanted to clarify that CEI did not use ‘fraud’. I don’t see how you can say it is weaseling out when I am assigning to the defendants a more defamatory statement.

    “Yes, you can publish that a public figure has committed a crime. You’d better be able to back up what you say, or you may end up in court.”
    Non sequitur. The US has little prior restraints on publication, so anything CAN be published. Can publish in this context is that you don’t get taken to court because you published.

    “Now the courts are declaring you cannot publish this statement because the investigations’ results are the final word.”
    “Nothing of the sort has been said.”
    You previously in the same post wrote:

    ‘In this case, there are people who believe Mann has committed fraud, and declare so.’

    They declared it as a fact, which means that they’d better have proof .., or … they are guilty of libel.

    They did not publish “We believe that …” If they had, this discussion wouldn’t exist. You do get the distinction between “We believe that this is invalid” and “This is fraud”, don’t you?

    The investigations are being used as the basis for saying it is wrong to say Mann committed fraud. Looking at some of the rulings they are also saying that is unacceptable to say ‘bogus’ or ‘inaccurate’.
    I am not so sure about ‘we believe’ making a difference here. It would be the overall context that matters. When you have opinions delivered in a certain context, they can be interpreted as claims of fact. Similar argument is in the appeals court ruling.

  485. #485 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    Wow, good luck getting FL to endorse your view of the law. I feel he has explained it, and confirmed that you are confused.
    If you can get him to agree with you on defamation, proving actual malice, recovering damages, etc, that’s as good as a link for me and I’ll accept that.

  486. #486 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    One thing people should note is that Nick Stokes’s list is not complete. The amicus briefs he has listed are not the only ones. There were more briefs that were submitted, which are posted at https://cei.org/michaelmann
    I believe between the two of them all items are available.
    The earlier briefs submitted by ACLU and others deal with anti-SLAPP law appeals and other minor issues.

  487. #487 MikeN
    December 30, 2016

    EFF has a separate amicus brief, and they are interested in two things, and do not argue the issues of fraud or investigations.

    1) Organizations should not be sued for linking to or hosting arguments made by others.

    2) Strong anti-SLAPP law and burden of proof on plaintiff, to protect publishing organizations with little resources to fight libel cases.

    It is possible ACLU also is not interested in details of government investigations but only in anti-SLAPP law minutiae., but they did not file a separate brief.

  488. #488 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    December 31, 2016

    MikeN, your argument in #484 is a complete non-sequitor.

    Of course I wouldn’t like it if I had a company and people were lying about me. However, not liking what other people say is not a basis for taking them to court.

    Steyn and the others were not merely saying nasty things. They were accusing Mann of FRAUD, an actual offence. People who commit fraud can have their funding cut and action taken against them, including criminal proceedings.

    Now lets say the accusations made about my company are invalid, but these attacks keep coming. So I arrange for my accountant to hire an outside investigator who issues a report clearing me. The people attacking me think the outside investigator did a poor job.

    Again a non-sequitor. There were FOUR external investigations done. Some of them were arranged so that they were completely independent of Mann. None found any evidence to support the claim of fraud. By continuing to assert that fraud occurred, Steyn and the others showed “reckless disregard for the truth”.

    I wouldn’t like it, but I don’t think I’d have a court case to make against them, especially if I qualify as a public figure.

    Let us suppose that as a result of the lies being told, you lost business. Several of your customers/clients went elsewhere and told you the reason for doing so was because they were concerned about the claims being made. No matter how public a figure you are, you could bring suit because your accusers showed a reckless disregard for the truth and caused you actual harm.
    That is largely what happened here. Steyn et al made claims of fact that were false, continued to make them and refuse to withdraw them after they were shown to be false, and those false claims caused harm to Michael Mann.

  489. #489 FLwolverine
    December 31, 2016

    FWIW I concur with Julian Frost’s analysis.

    MikeN – first, pet peeve of mine: the anti-SLAPP issues are not “minor items” or “minutiae”. The two issues decided by the appellate court are very big fucking deals and mainly benefit the media and journalists.

  490. #490 FLwolverine
    December 31, 2016

    MikeN – Second, there are so many amicus briefs floating around in this case that it’s hard to know what was actually filed unless you see the court docket stamp on the cover sheet. The only authoritative list of briefs and other filings is the court docket itself, which is available on line, but which does not link to copies of the documents. Nick Stokes at least tries to connect the linked documents in his list to the court docket. So be careful about assuming that a brief on a website was what was actually filed.

  491. #491 FLwolverine
    December 31, 2016

    MikeN – Third, let’s go back to the media fear that government reports will be used to prove defamation against them. I explained one aspect of this earlier, but that didn’t seem to convince you so I’ll make one more try. Start by forgetting every courtroom scene you’ve watched on TV or movies; none of them are realistic.

    You seem to think that Mann can walk into the trial, drop several thousand pages of reports on the table, and have the trial judge point at the reports and tell the jury, “ok, those reports say Mann’s work was not fraudulent; therefore Mann’s work was not fraudulent; therefore you must find that the defendants libeled him when they said his work was fraudulent; case closed.” That would be a travesty of the First Amendment and the judicial system, and the media (and the rest of us) should be very, very worried if that happened. But the judicial system DOES NOT work that way.

    Here’s how it works: The fact-finder in this case is a jury. The ideal jury is a blank slate, that is, they have no knowledge of the facts of the case and they have no preconceptions about the people or issues involved in the case. That’s an ideal; it’s never completely true, but the jury selection process tries to get as close to the blank slate ideal as they can – very little prior knowledge, no preconceptions, no prejudices.

    Then the parties have to present AND PROVE the facts of their cases to the jury, to the fact-finder. The judge does not tell the jury what the facts are. That’s why the appellate court kept saying: “ a jury could reasonably find…” No one is dictating what the facts of the case are; the jury has to decide the “true facts” for itself.

    So as to the four investigative reports, the jury will not know what the appellate court decided or said about those reports. Mann will have to introduce the reports as evidence, probably with a witness (or two) who will testify about why the investigation was done, who did it, how they did it, and what they concluded. The defendants get to examine all these witnesses (and will probably have deposed them earlier) to challenge the validity of the reports. The defendants also can present their own witnesses to testify against the validity of the reports. The jury has to decide who they believe. If they decide the reports are valid and should be believed as proving Mann’s work was not fraudulent, then they go to the next questions of whether the defendants knew about these reports, if it was reasonable for defendants to doubt the reports, etc etc.

    So even if Mann convinces the jury that the reports are valid and believable and show his work was not fraudulent, there is not a slam dunk libel verdict against the defendants. Mann still has to prove the other elements of his case, and the defendants have the opportunity to defend against it.

    This is EXACTLY how expert witness testimony and reports are handled in trials every week in our judicial system – engineers, traffic consultants, chemists, psychologists, and on and on. Because that’s what these investigative reports are – expert testimony. A jury is not required to believe or accept expert testimony and reports. The party presenting the expert has to show the expert’s credentials and methodology and convince the jury that the testimony should be believed. The defendant gets to challenge the credential and methodology and, importantly, the expert’s possible prejudices or biases.

  492. #492 FLwolverine
    December 31, 2016

    #479 –
    I said: “Wow – you say that Mann does not need to prove “actual malice” in order to prove libel/defamation, and proof of “actual malice” is only necessary to recover damages. This is wrong. ”

    Wow said: “no, but it may not be valid in certain states, since this isn’t a federal issue.”

    Wow, could you explain your answer to me please? What is “it”? What “may not be valid in certain states”? Citations?

    In First Amendment cases (and defamation is a First Amendment issue), the US Supreme Court is the final interpreter of what the US Constitution means. So state court holdings on First Amendment issues must be consistent with the US Supreme Court holdings. That’s why the Sullivan case (US S Ct) is cited in both the appellate decision here and in the US Law Digest you mentioned earlier. The DC courts laid out the elements of defamation as applied in the DC courts in a case called Oparaguo v Watts (p 53 of the appellate decision), but that list of elements must be consistent with US S Ct decisions.

    So I’m really interested to know what distinction you are making between the elements of defamation as the DC court stated them, and what is done in other states.

  493. #493 Chris O'Neill
    December 31, 2016

    If you ever wondered why the likes of Steyn thought they could get away with getting people to think Mann is a fraud: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/815211645144354819

  494. #494 Desertphile
    December 31, 2016

    If you ever wondered why the likes of Steyn thought they could get away with getting people to think Mann is a fraud: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/815211645144354819

    LOL! A real American nut sack. And gosh: when did Dr Mann ever receive federal funding? In a past life?

  495. #495 Desertphile
    December 31, 2016

    “Desertphile, the judge’s doing her own reconstruction is surprising, but the story sounds vaguely familiar, so I suspect Wow isn’t entirely confused.”

    Few scientists in the world know how to do a temperature reconstruction; I wonder if the judge just used one or more of the several on-line databases that plot the reconstructions done by others. Even the BEST dataset runs over one billion data points, and at least 20% of it is too poor to use.

  496. #496 Christopher Winter
    December 31, 2016

    Yep, Mr. “real American” proudly upholds his bravery by concealing his real name as he posts his challenge. It reminds me of the emails received by Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

  497. #497 Christopher Winter
    December 31, 2016

    MikeN (quoting “the media amicus brief” in #476): The fact that certain official panels backed Mann’s methodology – facts that were not only disclosed in the challenged publications but in fact formed the basis for them – cannot allow him to silence his critics in a defamation claim. Under the First Amendment, the government is not the final arbiter of truth with the power to foreclose further challenge to its policies.

    This reasoning seems very muddled to me. If the scientific facts contained in “the challenged publications”, which support the validity of Dr. Mann’s work, cannot be used in his defense, what possible defense can he — or science itself — bring to bear?

    And that last sentence seems totally irrelevant. To exactly what policies is the government allegedly attempting to foreclose further challenges?

  498. #498 Brainstorms
    December 31, 2016

    Of course I wouldn’t like it if I had a company and people were lying about me.

    You’re already starting to distort what I said. I asked you about a hypothetical case of someone making CLAIMS about you/your company that COST YOU BUSINESS. You would simply “not like it”???

    However, not liking what other people say is not a basis for taking them to court.

    Congratulations. You have 100% of the people commenting on this blog agreeing with you.

    You’re also stating something that is 100% irrelevant to Michael Mann’s case.

    Why do you keep doing this? Are you obtuse? Dishonest? Everyone keeps pointing out the obvious to you, but you keep returning to irrelevant, non-existent issues. (And most now have you pegged as being dishonest.)

    Now lets say the accusations made about my company are invalid, but these attacks keep coming. So I arrange for my accountant to hire an outside investigator who issues a report clearing me. The people attacking me think the outside investigator did a poor job. I wouldn’t like it, but I don’t think I’d have a court case to make against them, especially if I qualify as a public figure.

    Again, no one is contradicting you here, but your hypo is not relevant to Michael Mann’s case. It’s also not the hypo I gave you.

    I am saying you can publish ‘Michael Mann committed fraud’, while the defendants are trying to claim a weaker meaning that what they wrote was opinion.

    Yes, except that you cannot publish ‘Michael Mann committed fraud’ unless you have evidence that he did — And they don’t. And to make things worse, Mann has several sources that demonstrate that he did not commit fraud. They’re in hot water, and rightfully so.

    Just wanted to clarify that CEI did not use ‘fraud’. I don’t see how you can say it is weaseling out when I am assigning to the defendants a more defamatory statement.

    My apologies on that — I misread your original. :^)

    The US has little prior restraints on publication, so anything CAN be published. Can publish in this context is that you don’t get taken to court because you published.

    Not in these United States. Anything CAN be published, as you said, just as anyone can stand up in a crowded theatre and yell “Fire!” But not everything ‘published’ qualifies as Free Speech, and not everything is legal.

    Your assertion that “anything I can publish is legal” is false.

    The investigations are being used as the basis for saying it is wrong to say Mann committed fraud.

    No, they’re not, and I’ll give you credit for cooking up a very sly misinterpretation of the case.

    The investigations are not being used as a basis for demonstrating libel. They are being used in an affirmative way to show that Mann did not commit fraud. “Mann did not commit fraud” does not equal “Steyn, et al committed libel”. Work on this. You’ll get it if you try.

    Looking at some of the rulings they are also saying that is unacceptable to say ‘bogus’ or ‘inaccurate’. I am not so sure about ‘we believe’ making a difference here. It would be the overall context that matters.

    Yes, and the overall context is that Steyn, CEI, NR, et al are intending to destroy Mann’s credentials and reputation so as to cause the public, and public officials, to disregard what he has to say. This is character assassination for the purpose of stifling Mann and preventing him from influencing public policy. It is anti-Free Speech in its intent.

    When you have opinions delivered in a certain context, they can be interpreted as claims of fact.

    Which is exactly why, when you have malice and a desire to ‘kill’, you had better be very careful what you are intentionally publishing, as you can easily be found to be committing libel by what you assert is the truth.

    Even if Steyn, CEI, NR, et al published that they were in complete agreement with Mann’s publications and results, and then claimed that he arrived at this agreed-upon results fraudulently, Mann would STILL have a libel case to pursue. Even when there is NO disagreement with his results. Do you get it?

  499. #499 MikeN
    December 31, 2016

    FL Wolverine, I understand about minutiae, but I meant on this blog you are perhaps the only one interested in the subject.

    I am not imagining anything like the courtroom scene you envision, but agree with your description. That the case is going to a jury is something the anti-SLAPP law was designed to avoid. The process is the punishment. If you believe the investigations are flawed, then you are limited in the speech you can make as a result of that belief. Perhaps you are satisfied that speaking the truth will lead you to five years or more of legal troubles with thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney costs where you have to prove to a jury what you said, but I am not. I understand your point, but see it as premised on the investigations should be taken as truth. This is what the media are arguing against.

    ” If the scientific facts contained in “the challenged publications”, which support the validity of Dr. Mann’s work, cannot be used in his defense, what possible defense can he — or science itself — bring to bear?”

    Their own speech in response. They can defend their science in the public arena, the scientific literature, etc.

    Julian Frost, I think they were claiming 9 investigations cleared Mann, not 4.

    “after they were shown to be false,”

    Defendants dispute this characterization. Indeed, how would an investigation say as false, “X has committed fraud”? At best they can say ‘We find no evidence X has committed fraud’. How do you prove a negative?

  500. #500 MikeN
    December 31, 2016

    Brainstorms, you misunderstood again. I am not asserting that ‘anything I can publish is legal’. What I am saying is that in this thread, I am using ‘can publish’ as shorthand to mean something like ‘should be able to publish this with expectation of not being taken to court;’ Yes the ordinary meaning is as you say. I thought it would be understood what I meant in the context of this thread.

    ‘Not liking what other people say’ was not intended to change the argument. I responded to your specific example with an accountant investigation, and not my shorthand.

    “Even if Steyn, CEI, NR, et al published that they were in complete agreement with Mann’s publications and results, and then claimed that he arrived at this agreed-upon results fraudulently”.

    Explain that. This is not a hypothetical in some regards. Wegman testified something like answer right + method wrong = bad science. How can you be in complete agreement and then say it is fraudulent? Did you mean something like what Wegman said?

    Overall thing I keep seeing and trying to explain is that people use the results of the investigations to argue it is libel to publish ‘Mann committed fraud.’ You argue against that, but then people keep saying the investigations have declared the truth of the matter. The media argument is that people should not have to accept this as definitive. They are particularly worried about future cases and not this one.

    I feel I understand the case you all are making. I have not bothered to argue why it is wrong on particulars, and instead am just trying to get people to see the media argument, which does not go to specific science, or even the language argument I think made well by NR(weaseling out as Brainstorms puts it).
    If the investigations did not exist that say Mann did not commit fraud, what would be your opinion of the case. Should it be dismissed?

  501. #501 MikeN
    December 31, 2016

    “Yes, and the overall context is that Steyn, CEI, NR, et al are intending to destroy Mann’s credentials and reputation so as to cause the public, and public officials, to disregard what he has to say. This is character assassination for the purpose of stifling Mann and preventing him from influencing public policy. It is anti-Free Speech in its intent.”

    Sure, but it is not anti-Free Speech, as he is still free to speak. It is Mann that is pursuing a court case that makes the defendant’s speech literally not free.

  502. #502 John Mashey
    December 31, 2016

    See Morgan&Kieth(1995) Subjective Judgments by Climate Experts, Fig 1. PDF p.3.

    Note expert 5 estimated 2XCO2 sensitivity as 0.3C, with SD of 0.2,, i.e., very, very sure of the number, an outlier on both value & uncertainty.
    p.7 has a list of the experts. Who might have been expert 5?

  503. #503 John Mashey
    December 31, 2016

    Oops, forget that, meant for Stoat.

  504. #504 Chris O'Neill
    December 31, 2016

    you cannot publish ‘Michael Mann committed fraud’ unless you have evidence that he did

    You can but (I’m trying to remember a lawyer here so correct me if I’m wrong) only if you do it in a way that won’t convince people to believe you.

    For example, if you just make a bald claim ‘Michael Mann committed fraud’ without any supporting attempt at justification and that doesn’t change anyones opinion then you can defend on the basis that it didn’t change anyones opinion so can’t have caused any harm to Michael Mann.

    What you can’t do is an act that actually causes damage of some form. Relatively straightforward for physical damage, for example, but a lot more complicated when the damage appears in the form of words.

  505. #505 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    January 1, 2017

    Julian Frost, I think they were claiming 9 investigations cleared Mann, not 4.

    OK, I only read of 4. If you say there were more, I’ll take your word for it.

    [H]ow would an investigation say as false, “X has committed fraud”? At best they can say ‘We find no evidence X has committed fraud’. How do you prove a negative?

    You’re half right. But even if you can’t prove a negative absolutely, you can prove it substantively or “beyond reasonable doubt”.
    In 1998, Andrew Wakefield published a “case study” of 12 subjects, suggesting that the MMR Vaccine could cause autism. Alarmed, researchers looked into the question and set up large studies. Enough subjects were analysed for a meta-analysis of over 14 million to be done. Not even this huge meta-analysis uncovered any difference between the rates of autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. By then, it had been revealed that Wakefield had taken money from lawyers looking to build a case that the MMR Vaccine caused autism and had cooked his data.
    There comes a point when a question has been so thoroughly investigated and no supporting data has been found that absence of evidence has to be regarded as evidence of absence. If nine investigations failed to find hard evidence that Mann committed fraud, then that’s almost certainly because Mann did not commit fraud.

  506. #506 Chris O'Neill
    January 1, 2017

    How do you prove a negative?

    Just because you can’t prove a negative doesn’t mean other people have the right to defame you. This is why potentially defamatory statements require a defence such as demonstrable truth.

  507. #507 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    “How do you prove a negative?”

    You don’t. Therefore the positive claim has to be proven. Steyn claims that he thinks that Mann is a fraud, so he has to prove he really does think that.

    Mann can’t prove he’s not a fraud (especially to the deniers because they KNOW, with a god-given fervour, that he’s guilty of SOMETHING), and so he doesn’t have the burden of proof.

    And since this is a case of libel, Steyn doesn’t have to prove Mann is a fraud, either.

    All Steyn has to do, to get off the hook, is prove that he thinks that Mann is a fraud.

    However, merely stating that he does isn’t proof. He needs evidence. And it can’t be half-assed, like “I heard from someone else he was”. So he has to prove to others that he thinks that.

    Simberg doesn’t have that option, since they’ve not tried to claim truth of the claims.

    Steyn has, and he has to show that he knows it’s true.

  508. #508 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    “”Julian Frost, I think they were claiming 9 investigations cleared Mann, not 4.”

    OK, I only read of 4. If you say there were more, I’ll take your word for it.”

    There’s been 12.

    And over a dozen other reconstructions that produce the same hockey stick shape, proving that EVEN IF it were manipulated, it just “happened” to be manipulated to show the truth.

  509. #509 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    If Steyn tries the “I don’t believe ANY of the investigations”, then he’s showing reckless disregard for the truth. If he tries to pretend that, he’s admitting guilt.

    This isn’t a good method.

    Not that he has any good ones left.

  510. #510 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    “” you cannot publish ‘Michael Mann committed fraud’ unless you have evidence that he did”

    You can but (I’m trying to remember a lawyer here so correct me if I’m wrong) only if you do it in a way that won’t convince people to believe you.”

    No, you can’t, even if you intend nobody to believe you are for real. What you CAN do is say “I think he’s a fraud”. Or “In my opinion, the hockey stick is a fraud”.

    You can’t claim it IS a fraud or he IS a fraud, then post some whacko conspiracy stuff to make it look like, in context,you’re a nutcase can 100% unreliable, because that allows some other nut to cut out the claims out of context and insist that the libel is true.

    IOW, trying the”A blames B, B blames A” runaround.

  511. #511 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    “Sure, but it is not anti-Free Speech, as he is still free to speak.”

    But libel isn’t protected under the terms of free speech, any more than kiddie porn distribution is a free speech issue.

  512. #512 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    And anyway, Steyn et al are all able to speak freely. They just have to take the consequences of their actions taken in “speaking”.

  513. #513 Chris O'Neill
    January 1, 2017

    No, you can’t, even if you intend nobody to believe you are for real.

    Yes you can. Intention is beside the point. The point is whether the potential defamer actually causes damage. If no one believes him or changes their belief then he hasn’t caused damage. (Not being believed is not the only way of not causing damage btw.)

  514. #514 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    No you can’t and mens rea. “Reckless disregard for the truth”, remember. Even if you could point to “evidence”, if that evidence isn’t credible compared to contrarian evidence, then you haven’t proven you actually think what you claim.

    Remember, when a judge asks you innocent or guilty, he doesn’t take your “Not guilty” as true.

  515. #515 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    “The point is whether the potential defamer actually causes damage. ”

    Defamation per se.

  516. #516 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    ” I wonder if the judge just used one or more of the several on-line databases that plot the reconstructions done by others”

    No, he had the data and the paper produced and re-created his own code to do the merging and got the same result as Mann. Which in the case involved, proved that McI was wrong when he claimed there wasn’t enough information to recreate Mann’s work.

    The judge WAS a programmer, but not a climatologist.

    No google search on several possible terms brings up in the first few pages that isn’t just some denier BS about the HS being a fraud, or some rebuttal to that denier BS.

    You take it or don’t, but neither case change the reality, whether I’m bullshitting or not, it only changes what you accept.

  517. #517 BBD
    January 1, 2017

    @ MikeN

    FL Wolverine, I understand about minutiae, but I meant on this blog you are perhaps the only one interested in the subject.

    Wrong.

    You are in enough shit already. The trick is to *stop* saying silly things. There will be no charge for this advice.

  518. #518 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    Maybe “MikeN” means “nitpicking the very narrow elements that out of context creates a ‘catastrophe’ story for this legal case”.

    I.e. ignore the fact that libel is unprotected and insist that “in general” stopping people and businesses saying anything they like is “restricting their speech”.

    It’s a real bugbear of “libertarians”.

    The problem being you have to buy into their worldview blinkers.

  519. #519 Christopher Winter
    January 1, 2017

    Me (#497): ” If the scientific facts contained in “the challenged publications”, which support the validity of Dr. Mann’s work, cannot be used in his defense, what possible defense can he — or science itself — bring to bear?”

    MikeN (#499): Their own speech in response. They can defend their science in the public arena, the scientific literature, etc.

    And why would what Dr. Mann published not be included in “the challenged publications” — hence excluded from admission?

    As for speech in the public arena, how is this different than a “he said, she said” type of argument? And both side have been speaking this way since before the case was filed. It has not led to a resolution of the conflict, and it won’t.

    But the suggestion does seem consistent with your — and Steyn’s — apparent conception that everything is just a matter of opinion.

  520. #520 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    However, if you take that stance, then you must insist that libel laws be stripped from the books, along with truth in advertising, mail fraud, and all other types of fraud that exclude physical violence.

    Because even to say “If you don’t pay up, I’ll shoot you” when mugging someone is JUST SPEECH. Only actually shooting someone is non-speech actions.

    Someone uploads Harry Potter to Youtube and in defence against taking it down,the uploader just says it’s theirs, they own it. That’s just speech. And to avoid any case in court, the uploader could just point to the First Sale Doctrine and say “I really believed it was my copy!”.

    And, as long as this is abstract,the libertarian will accept quite blithely that this is acceptable. They will only take exception when this is done IRL.

  521. #521 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 1, 2017

    @~518
    “It’s a real bugbear of ‘libertarians’.”

    And I dare say a whole lot of conservatives in general. You have people who will blithely say, “The pen is mightier than the sword,” who will turn around and deny that words have the power to cause actual harm– as if they can only be used for good. It’s a social Darwinist view. If you incite or instigate or ruin a reputation, or damage the livelihood of someone you don’t like while willfully subverting fact and reason; it’s ok because you think that it makes you as an individual ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ don’t deserve to survive. As if the true purpose of democracy and government is to enable wealth and power by any means. It’s fundamentally the same take as that of career criminals.

    In other words, individuality is a real thing, but social consequences can’t be when you are blind to them.

  522. #522 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    They’ll cry at the danger of imams that preach radical islam and suicide bombers for their speech. They’ll complain about swearwords on TV. They’ll argue against rap music or chanting “kill the pigs”, or having “Kill the police” on t-shirts because the words can have consequences.

    Hell, they’ll complain about “Black Lives Matter” because it MIGHT mean “ONLY Black Lives Matter”. Or insist they should say “All Lives Matter”. They complain about “PC culture” stifling their speech, but complain if someone twitters “Anyone going to assasinate Trump?”.

    Hell, they don’t even see the hypocrisy, only complain about “the left”‘s hypocrisy in hating Trump after winning the election, as if it’s not worth mentioning the hypocrisy of their complaints for 8 years of Obama (or the shooting dead of an actual Democratic senator in that time) and their whining about it being done to “their guy”.

    But if the consequences don’t affect them or their biases or bigotries, then the speech doesn’t HAVE consequences.

    When WL leaks stuff against the USA, they’re a russian (government) organisation. When WL leaks stuff against Hilary, claims of russian (government) involvement is laughed off as worthless.

    The CIA when they said Saddam had WMDs were hailed as PROOF Shrub had reason to go in.

    The CIA when they say Russia hacked to get Trump in, the CIA WMD documents are hailed as PROOF the CIA aren’t reliable sources.

    And no matter what speech the CIA get involved with, there’s no consequence of it (invasion of Iraq or falsified voting in the USA).

  523. #523 Brainstorms
    January 1, 2017

    Hence my proposal for a constitutional amendment:

    Hypocrisy is a capital offence that can be tried, and if proven, the perps are subject to capital punishment.

    Here’s how we get it to pass easily: We include in it a lottery to select those who get to pull the lever, press the button, etc.

    Those self-same hypocritical right-wing haters will surge forth in support of it, just for that luscious chance to execute someone.

    Savor the irony of their hypocrisy…

    We can call it the “Ouroboros Amendment”.

  524. #524 MikeN
    January 1, 2017

    Chris Winter, my point was the scientists’ defense should be in the public arena, and there should be no court case.

  525. #525 Wow
    January 1, 2017

    Why? Nobody else has to. Your partisanship isn’t reason.

  526. #526 MikeN
    January 1, 2017

    Desertphile, what Wow is now saying does not sound familiar. I haven’t even heard of this other court case. Perhaps he has read something about Tim Ball’s case in Canada with Mann.
    What I vaguely recall is a judge doing something that doesn’t rise to the level of ‘reconstruction’, but again I don’t remember.

  527. #527 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    January 1, 2017

    @MikeN:

    Chris Winter, my point was the scientists’ defense should be in the public arena, and there should be no court case.

    That is totally unreasonable under the circumstances. This is not a case of Mann saying X and Steyn saying “I respectfully disagree”. Steyn called Mann a fraud, an accusation which has caused Mann harm.
    Your argument seems to me to be that free speech should be absolute, even in the case of false accusations that cause others harm. That is unwise.

  528. #528 Chris O'Neill
    January 2, 2017

    scientists’ defense should be in the public arena, and there should be no court case

    Thank you for your opinion. I’ll file it according to its value.

  529. #529 Wow
    January 2, 2017

    “Your argument seems to me to be that free speech should be absolute, even in the case of false accusations that cause others harm. That is unwise.”

    Oh, no, only SCIENTISTS’ have to accept absolute freedom of speech *in others*.

    Of course, so far we only have climate scientists in this discussion, so I wonder if he’s OK with monsato or GSK scientists likewise limited.

    Of course,he ALSO includes the government in that, if the scientists work is climate science. Else the government could go to them and sue them with government money. So I wonder too if he’d put up with the corporations that rely on scientists’ work being likewise incapacitated against harmful libel.

    Probably not. After all, they’re IMPORTANT, and SAVING LIVES, so they must be allowed to silence opposition and competition with anti-free speech laws in courts, not merely in the public arena.

  530. #530 BBD
    January 2, 2017

    my point was the scientists’ defense should be in the public arena, and there should be no court case.

    You prat.

  531. #531 RickA
    United States
    January 2, 2017

    stewart longman #452:

    I actually do have a question.

    Have you heard of Ian Jolliffe?

    What are your thoughts on Mann’s decentered PCA technique – which Jolliffe does not endorse?

    Perhaps this post will be helpful:

    https://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/

    Thanks for any comments you may have.

  532. #532 BBD
    January 2, 2017

    RickA

    It doesn’t significantly affect the results.

    And it is a million fucking miles away from fraud

    Fair warning to you: I’m not going to be as patient with your endless insinuations that there is some great problem with climate science this year as I was last. You’ve had your shout.

  533. #533 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 2, 2017

    @~531, climateaudit?

  534. #534 Wow
    January 2, 2017

    Isn’tthat run by the same dude who, a decade after petulantly demanding data and having got it, still hasn’t managed to come up with his reconstruction of the MBH hockeystick?

    Yeah, pretty sure that’s the one.

    How’s his mining company doing?

  535. #535 Wow
    January 2, 2017

    “Have you heard of Ian Jolliffe?

    What are your thoughts on Mann’s decentered PCA technique – which Jolliffe does not endorse?”

    Which has been investigated and shown to make no statistical difference to the answer.

    Like all that fraud’s proclamations against MBH, a load of hooey after wasting time, money and effort (wasting your taxpayer dollars!), was found to be irrelevant.

  536. #536 SteveP
    January 2, 2017

    Climate Audit. Isn’t that the website where you can find glowing references to people like Nils-Axel Mörner, the famous sea level rise denier who also believes in using dowsing rods to find things?

  537. #537 BBD
    January 2, 2017

    CA isn’t a source. It’s a sink.

  538. #538 MikeN
    January 2, 2017

    BBD, that was funny.

  539. #539 MikeN
    January 2, 2017

    Julian Frost, for public figures(which the court has ruled so, and I don’t think Mann argued against it) I lean a great deal towards the absolute side of things. Note, that according to the court rulings, calling Mann a fraud is not the line that has been crossed, but also saying things like ‘bogus’ and ‘inaccurate’.

  540. #540 BBD
    January 2, 2017

    #538 Mike N

    What did I suggest at #517? This:

    “You are in enough shit already. The trick is to *stop* saying silly things.”

    And then you go full tapir-brains on us. I was being serious.

  541. #541 Wow
    January 2, 2017

    “I lean a great deal towards the absolute side of things”

    Why? Any corporation is a public figure. Ergo Apple should not have access to the courts for libel or fraud cases?

  542. #542 Wow
    January 2, 2017

    “calling Mann a fraud is not the line that has been crossed”

    Yes it is.

  543. #543 MikeN
    January 2, 2017

    ” if he’d put up with the corporations that rely on scientists’ work being likewise incapacitated against harmful libel.

    Probably not. After all, they’re IMPORTANT, and SAVING LIVES, so they must be allowed to silence opposition and competition with anti-free speech laws in courts, not merely in the public arena.”

    “Ergo Apple should not have access to the courts for libel or fraud cases?”

    Wow, I’ve used Apple as an example above. I do think people should be able to speak about Apple critically in an almost unlimited fashion. I used the example of accusing them of bad labor practices like child labor, and Apple’s suing for libel, citing a report by the Chinese government that cleared Foxconn.

  544. #544 John Mashey
    January 2, 2017

    535: see also Cadima & Jolliffe(2009) On Relationships Between Uncentred and Column-Centred Principal Component Analysis (free copies around)

    This may give some into reasons why centering made little difference in this case; Jolliffe had thought about the problem, but for some reason people want to quote ~offhand comments from years earlier.

  545. #545 RickA
    United States
    January 2, 2017

    Wow #542:

    Steyn actually didn’t call Dr. Mann a fraud.

    Steyn called the hockeystick graph fraudulent.

  546. #546 Brainstorms
    January 2, 2017

    RickA, are you implying that the graph drew itself, therefore the graph is guilty of fraud?

    Good grief, you’re ridiculous in your desperation.

  547. #547 Brainstorms
    January 2, 2017

    I’ve used Apple as an example above. I do think people should be able to speak about Apple critically in an almost unlimited fashion.

    MikeN, you’ve been told repeatedly that this case IS NOT ABOUT CRITICISM.

    Why do you keep desperately trying to avoid dealing with the fact that the case IS ABOUT ACCUSATIONS OF FRAUD?

  548. #548 RickA
    United States
    January 2, 2017

    Brainstorms #546:

    I am not implying anything.

    I am reporting what Steyn actually said – which is not what you think he said.

    Ultimately, the trial will be about the exact words Steyn (and Simberg) wrote – and not some shorthand strawman version.

    It would be tremendously embarrassing for the Plaintiff to state in an opening statement that “Plaintiff will show that defendant’s called Dr. Mann a fraud . . .” and have an objection sustained by the Judge during the opening argument.

    The Plaintiff would lose a lot of credibility with the jury.

    No – the Plaintiff will be quoting from the articles – not paraphrasing them as you do.

    That is all I am saying.

  549. #549 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2017

    Steyn called the hockeystick graph fraudulent.

    That makes sooooooooo much difference as to whether there is defamation of Mann or not.

  550. #550 Julian Frost
    Gauteng North
    January 3, 2017

    RickA, have you forgotten this little statement?

    Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for 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.

    You are lying by omission. Even if you accept that Steyn calling the hockeystick fraudulent doesn’t defame Mann (and I don’t ), the other comments are defamatory.

  551. #551 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    That is all I am saying.

    You are a liar.

    You have insinuated at vast length that you believe Mann to be guilty of deception. Your shit about PCA above is the very latest of such JAQing exercises. Stop treating everyone here as if they were morons. Show some respect.

  552. #552 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    Here is corruption at work. This is what it really looks like, not some sodding millennial climate reconstruction:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38494455

  553. #553 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    Julian #550:

    I don’t see the word “fraud” in your quote.

    BBD #551:

    Oh – tone trolling. I thought you didn’t approve?

    But I have made my opinion very clear – which is that I don’t think Dr. Mann will be able to prove he was defamed.

    We will have to wait to see.

  554. #554 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    I don’t see the quote “fraud” in the claim.

    fraud
    frɔːd/
    noun
    noun: fraud; plural noun: frauds

    wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
    synonyms: fraudulence, sharp practice, cheating, swindling, trickery, artifice, deceit, deception, double-dealing, duplicity, treachery, chicanery, skulduggery, imposture, embezzlement; deception, trick, cheat, hoax, subterfuge, stratagem, wile, ruse, artifice, swindle, racket;
    a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

    Lets see that again in Justin #51:
    he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequenceWows for the nation and planet.

    Go read Steyn’s shitpost again, you retard and see if you can see any of those synonyms in the craptastic bollocks there.

    You fucking fraud, you prick.

    “We will have to wait to see.”

    You won’t, though.

  555. #555 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “It would be tremendously embarrassing for the Plaintiff to state in an opening statement that “Plaintiff will show that defendant’s called Dr. Mann a fraud . . .” and have an objection sustained by the Judge during the opening argument.”

    Just like if his clothes spontaneously combusted. And just as liable to happen. The three judges have all said he HAS been accused of fraud.IT’S IN THE FRIGGING COURT JUDGEMENTS.

  556. #556 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Oh – tone trolling. I thought you didn’t approve?”

    Pointing out you’re a liar isn’t tonetrolling.I realise you’ve only recently been informed of this logical fallacy,but like with ad hom, you don’t know what it means. Won’t stop you claiming it, though.

    What you HAVE done,though, is lost all credibility with that ridiculous claim objected and sustained by the evidence.

  557. #557 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Steyn actually didn’t call Dr. Mann a fraud.”

    Yes he did.

  558. #558 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    I’m not tone trolling. Another lie.

  559. #559 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    And I repeat, since the resident scum pretended not to notice:

    Here is corruption at work. This is what it really looks like, not some sodding millennial climate reconstruction:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38494455

    RTFL.

  560. #560 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Wow, I’ve used Apple as an example above. I do think people should be able to speak about Apple critically ”

    Who cares, “miken”? We’re talking about fraud or libel against Apple. Use their trademark? IT’S JUST SPEECH!!!! Ergo, Apple can’t go after knock-offs.

    Fake demonstrations that the iPhone sends all the traffic information to China, causing the entire current line to be abandoned and unsold? Well, Apple should just demonstrate that it doesn’t do that, right? Even if the opposition keeps making new ones “proving” it does.

    Create a “documentary” showing GSK cut the kidney out of Beagles without anasthetic to see how their perfume products react to a compromised system? GSK should just come out with a statement that they don’t. Even if their stock drops 40%,they just have to tell people that they don’t do that. Even if a new documentary showing them doing it to bunny rabbits comes out.

    How do you feel about the anti-GMO claims that the pesticides kill humans claims? How about the anti-Vacc continuing to make people refuse to get their kids vaccinated? When some protesters block a nuke site, they should be allowed to freely assemble and speak as long and as little as they like, and the police should never be used to break it up, right? All the nuke facility is allowed to do is have their spokesman speak.

  561. #561 Julian Frost
    Gauteng North
    January 3, 2017

    I don’t see the word “fraud” in your quote.

    So you’re saying that because the words “fraud” or “fraudulently” didn’t appear in that quote Steyn is not accusing Mann of fraud in that quote?
    Are you freaking kidding me?
    As you yourself posted:
    wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain…
    a person or thing intended to deceive others…

    You are now spinning.

  562. #562 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    Julian #561:

    Yes – I am saying that because the word fraud doesn’t appear in Steyn’s opinion piece, that he didn’t call Dr. Mann a fraud.

    Yes – that is exactly what I am saying.

    Steyn opined that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.

    Those are the words he used.

    For a defamation lawsuit the words actually used do matter.

  563. #563 RickA
    January 3, 2017

    Hey BBD!

    Stop calling me a liar.

    Show some respect.

  564. #564 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2017

    I have made my opinion very clear

    True. But a non-sequitur to arguing that Steyn actually didn’t call Dr. Mann a fraud.

    We will have to wait to see.

    But if you’re “making popcorn right now!” then you’re going to get pretty sick of popcorn, especially if it doesn’t turn out how you would like in which case you will be throwing up popcorn all over the place.

  565. #565 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Yes – I am saying that because the word fraud doesn’t appear in Steyn’s opinion piece, that he didn’t call Dr. Mann a fraud.”

    Then you’re a lying fuck.

  566. #566 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Stop calling me a liar.”

    Stop lying. THEN you’d have a case.

  567. #567 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Steyn opined that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.

    Those are the words he used.”

    Really? the words ” Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent” appears in Steyn’s “article”?

  568. #568 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “” I have made my opinion very clear”

    True. But a non-sequitur to arguing that Steyn actually didn’t call Dr. Mann a fraud.”

    Not really. His opinion is clear: NO MATTER WHAT, AGW is a scam and everyone involved must be shouted down, because those opinions are harmful to capitalism.

  569. #569 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    Steyn opined that Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graph was fraudulent.

    Those are the words he used.

    For a defamation lawsuit the words actually used do matter.

    You cannot make pathetically dishonest ‘arguments’ like this and expect not to be called a liar. A graph cannot commit fraud. It is a mechanism (in the pretense above) through which the intentional fraud is operated. The *person* who created the graph is therefore accused of fraud in your own example.

    I am done with your juvenile, dishonest crap, RickA.

    Grow up. Get you mind sorted out. Stop fucking lying to us.

  570. #570 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    Show some respect.

    To you? Don’t make me laugh.

  571. #571 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    All: notice that RickA *won’t* address the naked corruption erupting right now from the filthy republican swamp.

    Despite repeated prompts.

    Here is corruption at work. This is what it really looks like, not some sodding millennial climate reconstruction:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38494455

    RTFL.

  572. #572 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2017

    Not really. His opinion is clear

    Sure his opinion is clear but he was making a silly argument and then just abandoned it and reverted back to a bald statement of his opinion.

  573. #573 Brainstorms
    January 3, 2017

    Too bad this isn’t a courtroom. RickA would have had his ass thrown in the klink for contempt of court a long, long time ago.

    Not that he’d ever be repentant. “His opinion is clear”. As in, “you can’t see anything because there’s nothing of substance there”.

  574. #574 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    BBD #571:

    Did you have a question about your link?

    Chris #572:

    It is all opinion – either way.

    Your opinion is Dr. Mann is defamed and mine is he was not.

    It is opinion all the way down (until the jury decides).

  575. #575 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “but he was making a silly argument and then just abandoned it and reverted back to a bald statement of his opinion.”

    Oh, yeah, that too. Multiple layers of dishonesty is prick’s M.O. If it can be called that…

  576. #576 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “It is all opinion – either way.”

    No it isn’t.

  577. #577 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    Rick, if I say I know you forced your nephew to jerk you off when he was 6, and you say he wasn’t 6, they are both “opinion”,but the TRUTH is either you DID make him jerk you off at the age of 6 or you didn’t.

  578. #578 RickA
    January 3, 2017

    BBD #571:

    Ok – I will give you my opinion about your linked article.

    I think it is a good idea to put accountability back where it belongs – with the legislature.

    The experiment of creating a third party body failed – neither the Democrats nor the Republicans liked the anonymous allegations or the lack of transparency.

    So the republicans are going to put it back to the way it was six (or was it eight) years ago – and the way it has been since the US legislature was created.

    Each congress sets its own rules and only the House has the power to impeach – so ultimately it is up to them to decide if a member breaks the “rules” or even the law.

    I think it is a good move.

    That is my opinion.

    Let the name calling begin.

  579. #579 RickA
    January 3, 2017

    Wow #577:

    The jury tells us what the truth is – not you.

  580. #580 Brainstorms
    January 3, 2017

    I think it is a good move.

    That is my opinion.

    You’re allowed to have your own opinion.

    Just as you’re not allowed to redefine Reality or have your own version of Truth.

  581. #581 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 3, 2017

    RickA:
    “The jury tells us what the truth is – not you.”

    Still a little hung over from the new year’s celebrations are we? I have a suggestion for you. Perhaps you should make a resolution to learn more about epistemology in 2017. Not a fix, but it would be a start so long as you can think about it honestly.

    FWIW, I don’t think you always lie to us, but I do think that you are dishonest with yourself on a pretty fundamental level.

  582. #582 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Ok – I will give you my opinion about your linked article.”

    That saves time. I just skipped the post. It’s not like giving our opinion changed anything with you.

  583. #583 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “The jury tells us what the truth is – not you.”

    No, the truth isn’t up to them, either. The jury just gives their opinion.

    Just like we’re of the opinion you’re a paedo.

  584. #584 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “You’re allowed to have your own opinion.”

    But we don’t know what his opinion is. All we have is what he CLAIMS is his opinion. And we have enough evidence that he’s willing to say anything to promote his preferred outcome to cast doubt on his opinion being what he claims.

  585. #585 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    @577: Rick, if I say I know you forced your nephew to jerk you off when he was 6, and you say he wasn’t 6, they are both “opinion”,but the TRUTH is either you DID make him jerk you off at the age of 6 or you didn’t.

    @587: Wow #577:

    The jury tells us what the truth is – not you.
    ===

    So you made your nephew jerk you off because the jury told you you had done so?

    See, THIS is why we can’t take his claims of “his opinion” as being true.

  586. #586 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    OA #581 said “. . . but I do think that you are dishonest with yourself on a pretty fundamental level.”

    How would you know this?

    My guess is you are projecting.

    Or perhaps my written words disagree with your own views – and you would rather think I am being dishonest with myself, than think people honestly hold the views I do?

    Still – thank you for your partial admission that I do not “always lie”.

    That was very nice of you.

    For the record – I have never lied in anything I have written on this blog.

    I have been wrong several times – but never have I lied.

    One of the few pleasures of blogging is to be brutally honest – to put your views out there, for better or worse and see what others think of them.

    I also enjoy keeping my temper under control and the feeling of superiority I get from not being reduced to name calling.

  587. #587 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “I also enjoy keeping my temper under control and the feeling of superiority I get from not being reduced to name calling.”

    See, THAT is tone trolling, you feculant retard. I point this out to demonstrate that your whining here is ineffective and purely a waste of time.

  588. #588 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    Wow #587:

    Thanks – you just made me feel better about myself.

  589. #589 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “How would you know this?”

    Evidence. Such as the asinine claim “The jury tells us what the truth is – not you.”.

    Obviously, near-terminal stupidity would ALSO cover the stupidity of that claim, but we’re assuming you’re an otherwise operable adult human being, not a mental (medical) retard.

  590. #590 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Thanks – you just made me feel better about myself.”

    That’s more evidence of OA’s assertion about you. Even knowing absolutely this does nothing for your case or to ease your position, you’re still trying it.

  591. #591 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “For the record – I have never lied in anything I have written on this blog.”

    Then you must be incapable of even near-human thought.

  592. #592 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    Did you guys see this?

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/

    I wish her well.

  593. #593 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    No. Not interested either. I also don’t care what happens to her, nor what you want to care about.

  594. #594 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2017

    RickA:

    I have never lied in anything I have written on this blog.

    There’s this lie, for example.

    Pointing out you lie is not a name call, it’s simply a statement of empirical fact.

  595. #595 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    January 3, 2017
  596. #596 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    I thought Greg might find it interesting.

    Since he is still inside the tower.

  597. #597 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    But YOU found it interesting. Therefore YOU must be in the tower.

    But, hey, who needs those smart people who create jobs, eh? As long as they sell burgers in shops, you’ll have a job.

    Until they automate that…

  598. #598 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    How would you know this?

    Because you absolutely blank very good evidence that most of what you say is wrong. Then you repeat the wrong stuff.

    From the outside, the process is indistinguishable from lying. But you could simply be being dishonest with yourself at a fundamental level (it’s called ‘denial’).

  599. #599 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    Julian F

    Thanks for that. If true, it only means the reptiles have postponed turning off the CCTV until they think the public is distracted and they can get away with it.

    This is *absolutely* serious. Americans need to wake *up* or the day after tomorrow, vested interest will be in total control.

  600. #600 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    Curry sez:

    I have requested Emeritus status.

    Ha ha ha. Goes with the territory. She’s all made now.

  601. #601 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    Chris #594:

    Not only isn’t that a lie – it isn’t even wrong.

    If the IPCC says that more than 50% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans than less than 50% of the warming before 1950 is caused by humans.

    That is my honest opinion of what they are saying and actually mean.

    Since less than 50% of the warming prior to 1950 is caused by humans it is “mostly natural”, i.e. more than 50% caused by nature.

    Try again.

    BBD #598:

    You are making progress.

    Don’t forget – I could also be just plain wrong or I could be just plain right.

    We don’t know what TCR is yet (or ECS yet).

    We don’t know whether Dr. Mann was defamed yet.

    So I adopt a wait and see attitude – but feel free to express my opinion while waiting for the answer.

    But you are free to consider me to be in denial or being dishonest with myself (just as OA is free to think that).

    Once we know who was actually right or wrong – than we can measure who was in denial or not.

  602. #602 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 3, 2017

    RickA:
    “How would you know this?”

    Well, if you can’t answer this youself, how would you know that I can’t?

    Let me help, by reminding you that trial lawyers, at least, have to be able to read people. So how do they do that? Or poker players, or shrinks, or sig-int analysts?

    Part education and part experience; by “perspective taking” and being introspective and carefully observing other people and putting oneself in others shoes…

    So my first big revelation came in an abstract painting class. I started out dithering around, having fun until the professor started critiquing my work and telling me things I didn’t think I could possibly be letting excape from my head. So I tested her, by painting intentionally, and sure enough it was like I was sending her Morse code. I also learned from how other students were critiqued, that when you naively open your mouth, set hand to keyboard, brush to canvas, etc. you are more naked than you realize.

    The statement I quoted at 581 speaks volumes. I know what you meant, that it came from frustration. But I also know from your comments that this also reflects actual lacunae in your view point which you refuse to fill in… so epistemology.

    For starters.

    That I am angry doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s there because you need to see it.

  603. #603 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Not only isn’t that a lie – it isn’t even wrong.”

    Surely you’re lying again.

    “If the IPCC says that more than 50% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans than less than 50% of the warming before 1950 is caused by humans. ”

    WRONG.

    Are you putting more and more eggs in the “terminally idiotic” basket so you won’t be in the “lying his ass off” basket?

    I suspect the rest of that post is likewise complete bollocks. Saving time.

  604. #604 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “We don’t know what TCR is yet (or ECS yet).”

    We know it’s more than 1.5C/doubling.

  605. #605 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    OA #602:

    I agree with you about reading people.

    However, it is always better to see the person you are reading – because of the many non-verbal signals you can observe.

    But – I do take your point and agree that my writings reveal a great deal about me.

    I do honestly believe that we will not know the truth of whether Dr. Mann was defamed until the jury tells us what their decision is.

    That is how we measure it anyway.

    Dr. Mann asked the court system to find him defamed and the jury will ultimately rule on that fact issue.

    We can all have our own opinion – but the jury will be the ones who allow Dr. Mann to say “I won” or “I lost”.

    The jury will award money damages (or not).

    I am not frustrated.

    I just don’t acknowledge Wow or you or anybody else’s opinion as superior to my own – until we have the actual trier of fact’s ruling on the ultimate question of defamation.

    Until the jury decision day – nobody is right and nobody is wrong – we all just have our own opinions.

    I have never studied epistemology – so have no idea what it offers to support or rebut my own views.

    But I am telling you what I think and feel, as honestly as I can.

    What does my statement from 581 speak to you? Because I still think it is accurate.

    Enlighten me with your epistemology knowledge.

    Apply it to the Mann defamation case and the jury trial.

  606. #606 RickA
    January 3, 2017

    Wow #604:

    I really worry about you.

    CO2 hasn’t doubled yet – it is not at 560 ppm yet.

    That event is in the future and has not arrived yet.

    All we can say today is our estimate of what we think ECS or TCR will be at doubling.

    The IPCC/consensus range includes my opined value (within the PDF).

    So we do not KNOW it is more than 1.5C/doubling.

    We could have an ice age before doubling and never hit 1.5C – or the sun could go supernova and the Earth would be destroyed and we would never hit 1.5C.

    Or it could turn out that when we hit 560 ppm, that TCR will turn out to be over 1.5C – that is also possible.

    But we do not know the future today.

    We will not know the future until it becomes the present.

  607. #608 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 3, 2017

    Gee, Rick. Why might I think that you are not a receptive audience?

    I’ll say this though, people who work with hammers tend to think that every problem is a nail. Bang away knucklehead, if that’s what makes you happy.

  608. #609 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    Don’t forget – I could also be just plain wrong or I could be just plain right.

    No, that’s pretty much ruled out by observations, palaeoclimate and modelling, as you have been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    This is why your insistence on maintaining your stance means you are either very stupid indeed (and should therefore shut the fuck up on serious stuff) or lying.

  609. #610 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    @ Corey

    No, he’s always been like that.

  610. #611 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “I just don’t acknowledge Wow or you or anybody else’s opinion as superior to my own”

    The problem is that you insist opinion exists even where it doesn’t apply. Then insist that anyone telling you the truth is just saying opinion, which you don’t like, therefore ignore as wrong.

    And, given your ridiculous opinions spouted here, why the hell would you think your opinion is as valid as anyone else’s?

    Talk about an arrogant arsehole!

  611. #612 BBD
    January 3, 2017

    But you are free to consider me to be in denial or being dishonest with myself

    Well, either that or you are sooooooo stupid it hurts even to think about it. Or you are just lying.

  612. #613 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 3, 2017

    Greg Laden, if you are out there, I’d especially like to draw your attention to Cory’s post at ~607.

    Also links to denialist sites sprinkled through out this thread.

    Enough is enough.

  613. #614 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Don’t forget – I could also be just plain wrong or I could be just plain right.”

    No, you are wrong. As wrong as if you claimed there was a hamster in your sock drawer and then, when you looked, found there wasn’t.

    YOU ARE WRONG. Right now, we KNOW TCS is above 1.5C/doubling CO2.

  614. #615 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    We also know that ECS is higher than TCS, and therefore we know NOW that it’s higher than 1.5C/doubling

  615. #616 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “CO2 hasn’t doubled yet – it is not at 560 ppm yet.

    That event is in the future and has not arrived yet.”

    Never said otherwise.

    “All we can say today is our estimate of what we think ECS or TCR will be at doubling.”

    No, we know it NOW.

    IF there’s anyone out there not understanding where prick here is going wrong, he thinks that you can only work out the price per pound if you have at least a pound’s worth of the stuff.

    THAT is how much of a denier rick/mike is.

  616. #617 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “The jury will award money damages (or not).”

    Nobody said otherwise, retard.

    YOU are the one coming up with the juries making the truth.

  617. #618 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “Well, either that or you are sooooooo stupid it hurts even to think about it. Or you are just lying.”

    And the evidence points to lying.

    But, hey, he can have his opinion of him, everyone else can have theirs.

  618. #619 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “I do honestly believe that we will not know the truth of whether Dr. Mann was defamed until the jury tells us what their decision is.

    That is how we measure it anyway.”

    No we don’t, we measure it the same way as the jury does: on the evidence. Which we can do, but you refuse to, because the evidence doesn’t point where your opinion wants it to be.

    Of course, YOU don’t think there IS any evidence, it’s all opinion. And Mann’s is wrong.

  619. #620 RickA
    United States
    January 3, 2017

    Wow #619:

    YOU can measure it any way you want.

    The JURY however, cannot measure the evidence yet.

    The jury hasn’t even been selected yet – it doesn’t exist yet.

    It hasn’t been born (or created) yet.

    Each jury is different, being composed of different persons each time.

    I have no problem with your opinion of what the jury will do.

    We are all entitled to our opinion of what we think will happen.

    Me – as well as you.

    I do object to your stating you absolutely know what the jury will do, at some point in the future.

    Science would say that is impossible.

    But I will leave other readers to decide as to your credibility on absolutely knowing the future – whether of what a jury will do in the future or what TCR will be in the future.

  620. #621 Wow
    January 3, 2017

    “The JURY however, cannot measure the evidence yet.”

    Only because the jury would be discarded if they did. However, unlike you, it appears, I am just as capable as the jury of looking at the evidence and coming up with the same truth as they would looking at it.

    “The jury hasn’t even been selected yet – it doesn’t exist yet.”

    Yes, that would be one reason why the jury cannot yet make the decision. However, this doesn’t prevent the same decisions being made by us now.

    Even you, if you had the mental capacity.

    “what TCR will be in the future.”

    We know what the TCR is now. And we know ECS is higher. And we know TCR is more than 1.5C per doubling of CO2.

    The only ones not knowing are the mental defectives like yourself who deny reality because it is inconvenient and doesn’t respect their politics.

  621. #622 Christopher Winter
    January 3, 2017

    Julian Frost (#595): I hope this is true.

    It’s true. They (and the Democrats too) were inundated with protest phone calls — beginning, apparently, almost as soon as the news of their late-night meeting broke — and so they caved. But this is just a postponement, I feel sure.

    Also, Trump disapproved their action only because he thought other things should be done before they deal with the “unfair” OCE.

  622. #623 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2017

    where prick here is going wrong, he thinks that you can only work out the price per pound if you have at least a pound’s worth of the stuff.

    RickA made the right choice by choosing Law instead of a mathematically based profession like Engineering when you consider how mind numbingly incompetent he is at even basic mathematical concepts like the above.

  623. #624 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2017

    the sun could go supernova and the Earth would be destroyed

    Like saying any number of catastrophes could happen (however unlikely) therefore we should act as if they are going to happen.

  624. #625 Chris O'Neill
    January 3, 2017

    RickA:

    it isn’t even wrong

    As I pointed out there, just because the IPCC claims most of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic does NOT mean the IPCC claims most of the warming from 1910 to 1940 was natural.

    THEY ARE JUST NOT MAKING THAT CLAIM.

    They are only making the first claim and you just carelessly assume your claim from that.

    When you keep making even a disputed claim as if it is undisputed then you are telling a lie. That fact that you tell it over and over again shows that you are a compulsive liar RickA.

  625. #626 Chris O'Neill
    January 4, 2017

    Just wanted to point out that this claim:

    the consensus of climate scientists is that this warming (between 1880 and 1940) was natural

    is absolutely false. Climate scientists (as in the IPCC) did NOT make this claim. It’s just a claim derived by faulty logic from a claim that climate scientists did make so it is simply a bare faced lie to keep claiming that climate scientists made this claim.

  626. #627 The Donald
    January 4, 2017

    I am so pumped by this decision! For years I’ve been complaining that it’s just too easy for jealous losers to libel and defame winners like me without fear of legal repercussions. But if Mann wins his case it’ll go a long way to making America great again!

    As I said during my winning campaign,

    “One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,”

    But amazing as it may sound, it’s not all about me. Other winners will benefit as well. That great hero George Zimmerman will be able to sue the pants off of every loudmouth who claimed that he “got away with murder”.

    I am just so proud to be here today to thank Greg Laden and all my other supporters here on this blog who are helping me to shut up those protesters and Make America Great Again!

  627. #628 BBD
    January 4, 2017

    And back round to the beginning of the RickA bullshit cycle we go, just like 2016 never happened.

    People who refuse to listen to or accept evidence contrary to their opinions are arseholes. Their contribution to any individual discussion is worthless or negative. As a group, they keep bad information cycling through the public discourse which is actively pernicious.

  628. #629 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    “When you keep making even a disputed claim as if it is undisputed then you are telling a lie. That fact that you tell it over and over again shows that you are a compulsive liar RickA.”

    When rickmike claims to really believe they’re just not lying, that indicates either pathological problems severe enough to make them a danger to themselves and others, or that they know and don’t care, and all this bollocks about opinions or “facts” or anything rick uses to “support” their denial of AGW is merely rhetorical masturbation in public, only done to put people off debating and getting the discussion off reality and on to the topic of why this sick fuck is doing that in front of everyone who can see what they’re doing.

  629. #630 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    “Like saying any number of catastrophes could happen (however unlikely) therefore we should act as if they are going to happen.”

    But NEVER the catastrophe of AGW. No, not that, not ever, that should not be considered EVER to happen, we have to “wait and see” if that catastrophe happens, and we MUST MUST MUST act like that catastrophe is NEVER going to happen.

  630. #631 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    Do a poll, everyone. When you see someone saying we should adapt to AGW, ask them what they’re doing to adapt and why they’re not making the governments start their adaption now.

    When are they going to build new cities and ports above the current sea level to adapt to sea level rise? When are they going to move farmland to the far north to “take advantage” of the warming that will make those areas a useful growing area? When are they going to build houses for the climate refugees displaced by hostile environments growing and crops failing?

    In short, when are they going to stop saying we will have to adapt, and start the work needed to adapt?

    Or do they want others to adapt and pay the cost of the move? Because they’ve so far missed that bit out.

  631. #632 Brainstorms
    January 4, 2017

    “… you are a compulsive liar RickA.”

    Oh, give him credit. RickA is not a compulsive liar. He’s a carefully calculating liar. (He’s a lawyer after all.)

  632. #633 Desertphile
    January 4, 2017

    “Hey BBD! Stop calling me a liar.”

    Hey, Ricka! Stop lying.

  633. #634 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    “He’s a lawyer after all.”

    Is he? He shows no evidence of enough knowledge of even ordinary humans to manage that job. And a complete disregard for judges who dare not do like he wants.

    All we have is one claim a long time back that he was a lawyer.

    No evidence he is, lots of indicators he is not.

  634. #635 Brainstorms
    January 4, 2017

    RickA has to keep his skills up. That’s why he comes here to practice…

    You would ask the leopard to change its spots? You would ask a snake to rid itself of its venom? A shark to remove its teeth? How is that going to work?

  635. #636 Brainstorms
    January 4, 2017

    He’s made claim to being a patent lawyer and that he has an engineering degree. Makes sense, other than the fact that he’s turned to biting the hand that educated him and gave him the foundation to become a patent lawyer.

    But that goes with the territory. Those who hand-feed snakes had better prepare anti-toxin for when they’ll get bitten. Reptile brains don’t make choices based on long-term rational thinking — only what they think will benefit them in the short-term.

  636. #637 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    “He’s made claim to being a patent lawyer and that he has an engineering degree. Makes sense”

    Well, not really. He doesn’t care what the judges say, doesn’t know what the role of the jury is, and even when he’s busy “thanking” FLWolverine for his input, ignores AND REPEATS the errors that FLWolverine pointed out, so doesn’t even know what other lawyers know.

    And there’s no evidence of an engineering degree either. Nothing said indicates any knowledge in that sphere.

    All we have are claims, and that “makes sense” in that OF COURSE he’s going to pad his resume because he wants to be taken seriously DESPITE the crap that comes off his keyboard. If he told us he was cleaning tables at a McDs, we’d not be talking about his credentials, we’d just be talking about his argument.

    There’s no evidence he IS a lawyer of any kind. And contraindications galore. And nothing one way or another about his engineering chops.

    PS there are PhDs working at Answers In Genesis. Kent Hovind has some doctorate or similar from a shack selling degrees. There’s little to show that someone with education certificates actually know what the hell they’re talking about.

  637. #638 Brainstorms
    January 4, 2017

    “Doesn’t know”? Maybe. But I’d say that he does know, and he’s distorting & lying in an effort to get a rise out of you — and to mislead lurkers.

    Keep in mind that one can get an engineering degree and learn enough to know where/how to attack science. Just as one can get a legal degree and learn where all the vulnerabilities are in the justice system, so as to exploit them for personal gain.

    Just because one gets a degree, it does not mean that one has respect for the field studied — or for the implications of subverting it.

    RickA is focused closely on his personal fleshy pleasures and his beloved financial accounts. More education only makes him more capable in doing damage in pursuing that.

    Sociopaths are not stupid. Most of them are smarter than average, and often well-educated. They simply have no moral conscience, and use their intelligence in subversive, self-serving ways. RickA so far seems to fit this mold quite well.

    Never argue with a child. Probably should be extended to “never argue with a sociopath”.

  638. #639 RickA
    United States
    January 4, 2017
  639. #640 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    Yeah, right:

    Group weblog covering politics and news from a libertarian perspective.

    Soooo, not at all biased against Mann for his work in climate science and the Hockey Stick for indicating that, yes, it IS warming and alarmingly fast.

    Here’s a site from a Republican voter, try this one:

    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/mann-v-national-review-et-al/

  640. #641 MikeN
    January 4, 2017

    Wow, you’ve been ignoring FL Wolverine’s statements far more than Rick. You keep claiming Mann does not have to prove actual malice.

  641. #642 MikeN
    January 4, 2017

    This ethics reform is overblown. Republicans in the House wanted to put the Ethics Committee in charge of all investigations, with the power to shut them down. This committee would be split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

    Under the current system they are seeking to undo, the investigating unit makes referrals to … the Ethics Committee, split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
    The only substantial difference is the investigations can be shut down, and they can’t make public reports.

  642. #643 dean
    January 4, 2017

    MikeN leaves out two facts about the Republicans’ currently shelved plan:

    – It would have allowed the House Ethics Committee to shut down any investigation, at any time, for any reason, without disclosing why
    – it would have barred the House Ethics Committee from using any information from anonymous sources, or basing an investigation on anonymous complaints

    Robert W. Goodlatte of Virginia, also wanted the Committee to avoid looking at investigations that might lead to criminal charges.

  643. #644 MikeN
    January 4, 2017

    #627 In response to an attack on him Trump actually tweeted an article that said National Review could go bankrupt. The article was using this case as the reason.

  644. #645 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    They also wanted to rename it the COMPLAINTS investigator. After all, fraud? Nah, it’s just someone *complaining* again.

    And even while saying “we shouldn’t do this”, they add “at this time”….

  645. #646 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    “Wow, you’ve been ignoring FL Wolverine’s statements far more than Rick”

    No, that’s a lie. You’ve only accepted that he has said something. But ignored what didn’t concord with your desire.

    Whereas where I didn’t accept his points, I gave reason why not. Which isn’t “ignore”, dumbass.

  646. #647 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    Not forgetting, *I’m* not the one pretending to be a lawyer….

    PS who the fuck does trump think he is, giving “press converences” by tweet? A fucking 14 year old girl???

  647. #648 MikeN
    January 4, 2017

    Have you given a reason why you disagree with him on proving actual malice?

  648. #649 MikeN
    January 4, 2017

    Complaints investigator is a better name, because I don’t think they are doing a good job of maintaining ethics. They are pretty much exempt from insider trading. Taking bribes, they basically say, well just be sure to document things like ‘1 to a million dollars in value’

  649. #650 MikeN
    January 4, 2017

    British law is different, but what would people think about this case in the US?

    https://www.energyvoice.com/other-news/128020/green-group-says-controversial-fracking-leaflet-probe-dropped/

  650. #651 Wow
    January 4, 2017

    “Complaints investigator is a better name,”

    No it isn’t, it’s a name designed to cover up what it is supposed to be investigating. Something you’re WELL behind doing, aren’t you.

    “Have you given a reason why you disagree with him on proving actual malice”

    Yes. See post 412, or thereabouts.

    Give any reason why the juries define what the truth is?

  651. #652 FLwolverine
    January 4, 2017

    Wow – you may have intended to explain why you disagree with me on the need to prove. actual malice, but I don’t understand what you said. Plus some supporting citations would be helpful. See #492. Thanks.

  652. #654 BBD
    January 5, 2017

    Predictable that MikeN and RickA both defend the House Republican attempt to shut down the OCE.

    Bipartisan, open discussion of how to improve it would be the correct procedure. Secretive, closed-door attempt to remove it simply makes Republicans look corrupt and stupid in equal measure.

    Which, of course, many of them are.

  653. #655 BBD
    January 5, 2017

    Honourable execption:

    Republican Senator Lindsey Graham took a shot at his party colleagues’ decision to neuter the ethics watchdog, telling Fox News radio it was “the dumbest fricking thing I’ve ever heard”.

    In many ways a distraction from THE emerging story though, which is Teh Donald’s problem with the Russian electoral hacking. Siding with Assange against *all* the US intelligence services??? WTF?

    Donald is in a very sticky spot now. Who knows, this might yet bring him down before he even gets started. I’m frankly amazed that nobody has simply stood out and said that the election results are void because of foreign meddling and the whole thing will have to be run again.

    Because in a *real* democracy, there would be no other choice.

    Perhaps the American right prefers being tools of the Kremlin than leaders of the free world?

    That’s what it looks like from the UK.

  654. #656 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    FLW, I already have, several times. And, yes, this does include references. See also the bickmore link.

    But here’s another one: all Mann has to do is show he’s not a public figure. The ONLY reason why he’s public is because the denial industry made him one (cf Bradley and Hughes). He didn’t CHOOSE public status. It was FORCED on him. “Those whom the media wish to destroy will first make a public figure”.

    Moreover, by going the “But he’s a public figure”, you’re admitting that you DID libel him, but you get a pass on doing so because of his status as you declare it.

  655. #657 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “Perhaps the American right prefers being tools of the Kremlin than leaders of the free world?”

    No, they prefer to win (or, quite possibly, for the Democrats to lose). And it’s the same of the evangelicals. They voted for someone who WASN’T a christian, and avowedly (and patently) so, merely because they wanted a republican in power more than they wanted to honour their god.

  656. #658 BBD
    January 5, 2017

    because they wanted a republican in power

    Trump’s not a Republican.

    But I agree with you about the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of the fundies though. All the more remarkable when you consider that they presumably believe their actions will be judged in the hereafter.

  657. #659 BBD
    January 5, 2017

    To round that out a bit, it seems that RickA, MikeN, too many republicans and too many evangelicals are simply bullshitters in the Frankfurtian sense. The truth simply doesn’t matter. Defeating ‘the other’ (ahem) Trumps all.

  658. #660 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 5, 2017

    “…that the election results are void because of foreign meddling and the whole thing will have to be run again.”

    Inertia, and because it would be a massive and expensive, weird mess over something the impact of which no one estimate or possibly undo (because the garbage is in people’s heads, not in some fixable technical glitch). Not to mention that people are already sick to death of that whole, awful election cycle.

    “Bullshitters” — absolutely. Bullshitters all around on a massive scale. What a mess. And only getting worse.

  659. #661 Obstreperous Applesauce
    January 5, 2017

    BTW, I think that people who bullshit are enabled by being dishonest with themselves as well as by influence from their tribe. It requires lack of both self and social awareness.

    FYI, in other news:
    http://blog.ucsusa.org/yogin-kothari/attacking-science-in-week-one-how-congress-is-trying-to-dismantle-public-protections

  660. #662 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    They deflect the shame by pretending that the “other side does it too”.

    This too is easier for the christian fundamentalists: we’re born in sin, therefore every human is just as sick and depraved as them (but they’ll get away with it too because they LURVE Jayzus).

  661. #663 RickA
    United States
    January 5, 2017

    Lots of random opinions which have nothing to do with the subject of the post – the Mann defamation suit.

    Did anybody read my link at #639?

    Wow apparently found it uninteresting because of the political party of the lawyer who wrote it.

    Anybody else have any thoughts on it?

    Anything substantive on the Mann case or what happens now that the appeal sent the case back to the district court level?

    The linked article agrees that discovery will now commence and that it should be interesting.

  662. #664 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “Did anybody read my link at #639?”

    No.

    “Wow apparently found it uninteresting because of the political party of the lawyer who wrote it.”

    No, because I linked to a republican voter instead.

    I didn’t find it “interesting” because of a clear political bias of the site, I didn’t look who wrote it, so could not call on that information.

    “Anybody else have any thoughts on it?”

    No, but then again, you haven’t either, else you would have said something about them.

    Have YOU read Barry’s site links yet? YOU got any ideas on them? Or are you going to accept that there’s no requirement to read them therefore nothing is indicated by not doing so, just like I decided, proving your whinge was content free and meaningless?

  663. #665 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “Lots of random opinions ”

    Hmmm. Apparently he’s allowed his opinions, but we’re only allowed ours when he’s using it to insist his opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s. It’s not available when he wants to insert someone else’s opinion as some sort of “evidence”.

    EVER READ THE FUCKING COURT JUDGEMENTS, RETARD?

    There’s some fucking opinion there.

    And opinion based on the arguments made and evidence handed in, so FAR more informed than yours or that libtard idiot editor who asked for that puff piece.

  664. #666 RickA
    United States
    January 5, 2017

    Wow #664:

    Yes – I went and looked at the link you provided.

    I didn’t see anything about the Mann appellate decision.

    The latest post was mid 2016 (I think).

    It didn’t seem relevant to this post at all – so I was not able to glean anything relevant from it at all.

    My link is actually about the decision that Greg posted about, and about which we disagree.

    #665:

    I did read the decision.

  665. #667 Chris O'Neill
    January 5, 2017

    RickA:

    Lots of random opinions

    including your random opinion that you haven’t lied on this blog which is contrary to the fact that you told this lie:

    the consensus of climate scientists is that this warming (between 1880 and 1940) was natural

    Just because scientists claim something is artificial does not mean they are claiming something else is natural. Saying that they are making this other claim is a lie.

  666. #668 BBD
    January 5, 2017

    RickA

    Brian is a lawyer:

    http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-most-important-political-takeaway.html

    Seems both balanced and in line with what FLW has been saying.

    Popehat starts off well enough but eventually degenerates into this sort of partisan crap:

    The Court’s portrayal of the “investigations” and “studies” exonerating Mann seems to wander oddly from dispassionate examination of evidence to eager and almost fawning appeal to authority.

    He’s another know-nothing, it would seem.

  667. #669 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “#665:

    I did read the decision.”

    No you didn’t, otherwise you would not have claimed as you have here on this blog.

    Either that or you’re lying, which you insist you haven’t done. And if you are lying, then this claim can be a lie too.

  668. #670 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “I didn’t see anything about the Mann appellate decision.”

    Then you didn’t read it.

  669. #671 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “My link is actually about the decision that Greg posted about, and about which we disagree.”

    Except you disagree about the other decisions in this case, and ignore the opinions of both the other judges, disagreeing about what it means, and you even insist it must be ignored and given no value.

  670. #672 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    It’s not like you haven’t opined on them here either, is it. So why so coy now? Because there’s information in there you do not want to accept or deal with.

    Denial 101.

  671. #673 RickA
    United States
    January 5, 2017

    Wow #670:

    You linked to a Mann case page with seven links, each of which was from 2014.

    There is nothing at your link on the Mann appellate decision (which just happened within the last few weeks and which Greg links to in his post above).

    Please link directly to the page or material what you are talking about – because I didn’t see it.

    #671:

    I fully accept that the district court judge denied a motion to dismiss and the appellate court affirmed the denial and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

    I, of course, disagree with you about the legal import of what the decisions say in reaching their conclusion not to dismiss.

    But it is ok with me if you don’t find my link interesting and if you disagree with me about the law and what Dr. Mann has to prove to a jury.

    I did find my link intesting – found it pertinent and brought it to your attention (and other readers).

    You choose to disregard my opinion – and that is your right.

    We can simply wait and see.

    We can wait and see if discovery actually commences.

    We can wait and see if Mann has to answer interrogatories.

    We can wait and see if Mann has to produce any documents.

    We can wait and see if Mann is deposed.

    We can wait and see if summary judgement motions are filed and how they are ruled upon (if filed).

    We can wait for the jury to decide the case.

    Than we can wait to see if whoever lost appeals and what happens on appeal (if any).

    My opinion on what is going to happen is:

    1. Dr. Mann will have to answer interrogatories, produce documents and will get deposed.

    2. Steyn will not move for summary judgment – he wants to get to trial. Dr. Mann will probably file SJ – but will lose. Not sure about the other defendants.

    3. At trial, Dr. Mann will not be able to prove he was defamed and the jury will find in Steyn’s favor.

    4. Steyn will write a post about his victory and will say really nasty things about Dr. Mann.

    5. Dr. Mann will sue Steyn again.

    6. Rinse and repeat.

    Just kidding about 5 and 6.

  672. #674 RickA
    January 5, 2017

    BBD #668:

    Yes – Brian’s analysis seems very balanced to me also.

    I think everybody except Wow agrees that there will be discovery.

    Brian certainly seems to indicate discovery will happen below and my link also discussed discovery (at the end).

    Brian says the case is far far from over and I also agree with that.

    Brian does not say how he thinks the case will resolve (if it isn’t settled) – and I do – but his comments seem very fair.

    His comment about how the defendants didn’t raise truth might be misconstrued. True – they didn’t brief that their articles were true as a reason to grant their motion to dismiss – they used other arguments instead.

    But the defendants can still raise truth as a defense on summary judgment and at trial.

    Perhaps we agree on this as well – I am not sure.

  673. #675 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “You choose to disregard my opinion”

    We do so for reason, something you refuse to see. Probably because it is beyond your grasp.

    “You linked to a Mann case page with seven links”

    Correct.

    “There is nothing at your link on the Mann appellate decision”

    But seven links on the case of libel. And you refuse to acknowledge that this latest attempt to get the case dismissed had opinions from someone who you decide to ignore. The judge themselves.

    “We can wait and see if …”

    Pointless words with zero meaning or significance. But I guess when you have nothing on your side, you have to grasp at nothing and pretend it’s a huge important thing.

    Rather pitiful, aren’t you.

  674. #676 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “…if Mann has to answer interrogatories…”

    And where in this appellate document does it say Mann may have to answer anything?

    YOU were insisting that it had to be about this ruling, not a fictitious future whose only reason you “think” it will happen is because you can imagine it. Just like the suicide bomber can imagine a host of virgins waiting for him.

    And with about as much validity of hope. And about as much meaning as your “We’ll have to wait”. Would you accept it from some fundie murderer?

    And nowhere in your imagination is there anything about Steyn et al having to do this.

    Which is your problem all along: you’re so hidebound and blinkered you can only LET yourself consider one future. One that everyone who is informed better than you on it has said is already a slam-dunk pass.

    But that, to you, is just “opinion”.

  675. #677 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    If all you’re doing to do is squawk “We’ll have to wait and see! We’ll have to wait and see!”, why don’t you just fuck off, wait, and see?

    If everything to you is mere opinion, why bother passing yours about? Especially since you’ve never let what happens change yours.

  676. #678 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “His comment about how the defendants didn’t raise truth might be misconstrued. ”

    Ah, so only places you agree with him do you think it balanced…. Right. How about where he disagrees with you?

    “But the defendants can still raise truth as a defense on summary judgment and at trial.”

    But the chance of anything being found to do that is zero. And with the three decisions made so far, summary judgement is absolutely zero chance of working. Meanwhile, Mann can raise the fact that he’s not a public figure at trial. He didn’t chose public life, the deniers chose him.

  677. #679 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “1. Dr. Mann will have to answer interrogatories, produce documents and will get deposed.”

    Dr Mann has nothing to answer.

    “2. Steyn will not move for summary judgment – he wants to get to trial.”

    No, he’s terrified of it, nearly as much as NRI and CEI. That’s why there’s been several motions from them to dismiss, and a huge number of delays brought by them.

    ” Dr. Mann will probably file SJ – but will lose.”

    No, he has no desire or need to do so.

    “3. At trial, Dr. Mann will not be able to prove he was defamed”

    All three judges disagree with you, and can find no reason for anyone to take that decision. And they have the evidence in front of them.

    ” and the jury will find in Steyn’s favor”

    No, there’s no way that will happen. Not even you have managed to find any excuse for that to happen.

  678. #680 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    “My opinion on what is going to happen is:

    1. Dr. Mann will have to answer interrogatories, produce documents and will get deposed.

    2. Steyn will not move for summary judgment – he wants to get to trial. Dr. Mann will probably file SJ – but will lose. Not sure about the other defendants.

    3. At trial, Dr. Mann will not be able to prove he was defamed and the jury will find in Steyn’s favor.”

    This is what I mean when I pointed out that “ricka” appears to be learning impaired.

  679. #681 Brainstorms
    January 5, 2017

    Funny how RickA got Steyn & Mann mixed up when he wrote #673. Swap the two and it reflects the current situation:

    1. Steyn will have to answer interrogatories, produce documents and will get deposed.

    2. Dr. Mann will not move for summary judgment – he wants to get to trial. Steyn will probably file SJ – but will lose. Not sure about the other defendants.

    3. At trial, Steyn will not be able to show innocence and the jury will find in Dr. Mann’s favor.

    4. Dr. Mann will write a post about his victory and Steyn will say really nasty things about Dr. Mann.

  680. #682 MikeN
    January 5, 2017

    “The Court’s portrayal of the “investigations” and “studies” exonerating Mann seems to wander oddly from dispassionate examination of evidence to eager and almost fawning appeal to authority. ”

    I agree with this description. At times it is analyzing critically, allowing for defendants’ interpretation(while not accepting this interpretation), while other times it simply states their findings as fact.

    Wow, you say Mann has to show he is not a public figure. I suspected this might have been a point of disagreement, and asked about it, and you kept ducking the question. The court ruled that Mann is a public figure, and Mann did not even argue against it I think. So now, given that, Mann has to prove actual malice, yes?

  681. #683 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “This is what I mean when I pointed out that “ricka” appears to be learning impaired.”

    He’s reality impaired.

    Learning impaired is merely a side effect of the above.

  682. #684 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “I agree with this description.”

    Well, of course you agree with a description that puts denier trolls like Steyn in the best situation and realists like Mann in a worse one.

    “At times it is analyzing critically, allowing for defendants’ interpretation(while not accepting this interpretation), while other times it simply states their findings as fact.”

    Because things HAVE been fond as fact.

    Duh.

    “Wow, you say Mann has to show he is not a public figure.”

    No I didn’t you lying sack of crap. I showed he can do so, not he has to do so, you reading impaired moron.

    “and asked about it, and you kept ducking the question”

    No, I didn’t duck your question, I answered it, see post 412 or thereabouts.

    “The court ruled that Mann is a public figure”

    No it didn’t. It noted he hadn’t argued he wasn’t.

    And isn’t it odd to you that you take the judgement here as finding fact, but just earlier you thought it untenable for them to find a fact..? Of course not because ideological blinkers make you blind to inconvenient truths.

    “So now, given that, Mann has to prove actual malice, yes?”

    No.

    See post 412 or thereabouts.

  683. #685 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    See also the same thing you said “given that” about. Since it is defamation per se, even Steyn isn’t getting out on a claim that no damage was done.

  684. #686 RickA
    United States
    January 5, 2017

    MikeN:

    Wow, Brainstorms and Desertphile literally have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to legal matters.

    So we continue to disagree (and that is ok).

    FL clearly does know what he is talking about and BBD seems pretty knowledgeable (as do you).

    You are 100% correct on malice – but don’t expect Wow to ever agree.

    There is no way to know who is right on the ultimate issue of defamation until the jury decides.

    But discovery will start and perhaps we will get updates from either Dr. Mann or Steyn on what is going on discovery wise.

    I believe Steyn has already answered interrogatories and document production – so likely Dr. Mann will get served with discovery requests next.

    After ints and doc requests are done – I think depositions will get noticed up and that is what I am really looking forward to.

    I just hope the transcripts from all the depositions are published.

  685. #687 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    “He’s reality impaired. Learning impaired is merely a side effect of the above.”

    It is spooky. He wants us to believe he believes the exact opposite of observed, demonstrable reality. He is pretending that he has no idea what discovery entails, nor any idea why it’s the defendants being deposed and not Dr Mann. It’s like the thinking processes of a space alien, or an insect: mentally healthy people are left utterly baffled, but filled with pity.

  686. #688 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    “Wow, Brainstorms and Desertphile literally have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to legal matters.”

    We reported what the courts and the judges stated. You keep insisting observed reality did not happen. You really should, seems to me, talk to a mental health care professional about the problem.

    Why did you refuse to answer my simple question?

    Q: What knowledge or documents do you believe Dr Mann has in his possession that a deposition will produce?

  687. #689 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “It is spooky. He wants us to believe he believes the exact opposite of observed, demonstrable reality.”

    Yup, because as far as his disability lets him know, reality is merely opinion.

    What’s REALLY spooky is that he doesn’t understand why his “ideas” aren’t gaining traction.

  688. #690 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    ““Wow, Brainstorms and Desertphile literally have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to legal matters.”

    We reported what the courts and the judges stated.”

    Yup, rick here is so divorced from reality that he thinks we have no idea because we’ve read the judges’ decision and have learned from it, whereas he “thinks” (if, indeed, such a word can be placed on that activity) that by ignoring the reports and insisting that it makes no difference, it somehow makes his empty bloviating and ridiculous walter mitty-ing “well informed”.

    The question being “by what?!?!?”, given he doesn’t accept the opinion and information from judges who have presided on the case so far, and fabricates a future that has no basis or evidence in reality for it.

  689. #691 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    Take this corker from dick here:

    “I believe Steyn has already answered interrogatories and document production”

    Based on…?

    Nothing.

    THIS is what deniers think is “informed discussion”. Make shit up that fits what you’d like to be true, and if caught out, call it ALL “opinion” and never change yours.

  690. #692 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    And what evidence is there for Mann also having already answered interrogatories and document production? The same amount, but dick here doesn’t consider this as having happened and opines that it is yet to come.

  691. #693 RickA
    United States
    January 5, 2017

    Desertphile #688:

    You ask ” Q: What knowledge or documents do you believe Dr Mann has in his possession that a deposition will produce?”

    I don’t remember seeing your question – but I will answer it now.

    1. You don’t normally produce documents at a deposition. Instead you just answer questions – verbally – and a court reporter writes down a transcript of the question asked and the answer given. Each defendant will be limited to seven hours unless the Court gives leave for a longer deposition – so we have about 28 hours of potential deposition testimony (maybe more).

    2. Dr. Mann’s lawyer can ask Steyn (or other defendant’s at other depositions) questions and the defendants lawyers can ask Dr. Mann questions – so depositions go both ways (as do document production requests and interrogatories – interrogatories are just written questions with written answers).

    3. I expect the defendants to ask questions that go to the issues of opinion, truth, data manipulation and hockey stick graphs. Also damage to reputation. I am sure there are other issues that I am not thinking of off the top of my head.

    4. For example – a question could be why did Dr. Mann lie to the panel about having determined the R squared (R2) statistic? Or you might start with “Did you ever determine the R squared statistic in connection with any hockey stick graph?” If Dr. Mann says yes – you would go through and nail down each time and for which graph and for which paper and so on. Then you might follow up with the question asked by the NAS panel (I think it was NAS, but going off memory here) and why did Dr. Mann lie about it. And so on.

    5. For example – why didn’t Dr. Mann publish the R2 statistic in MBH98 (or was it 99)?

    6. For example – why use decentered PCA?

    7. For example – why only use two (or was it three) components in the PCA for MBH98.

    And so on.

    Lots and lots of questions which go to the issue of whether Dr. Mann manipulated data, whether Dr. Mann’s hockey stick graphs are fraudulent, whether the graphs were an attempt to get rid of the MWP, or were created to help the “cause” and so on.

    I am sure Dr. Mann’s lawyer will come up with lots of questions to Mr. Steyn – but I haven’t really thought about those issues – I am focused on Dr. Mann’s – because I think he will lose and I have thought about why more than I have thought about the case as it pertains to Steyn.

    On the issue of documents – they will ask for all data, data compilations, spreadsheets and so on, related to all hockey sticks (yes data is a document under the rules – both paper and electronic files are considered documents).

    They will ask for all graphs, all draft graphs, they will ask for all reviewers comments on MBH98, MBH99, and so on.

    They will ask for the various drafts of the papers before and after each set of review comments.

    They will ask for all emails related to MBH98 and MBH99 and Mann 2008 and the WMO 1999 cover graph (sent or received).

    They will ask for any documents that mention getting rid or or minimizing the MWP.

    They will ask for any documents related to using any scientific paper to help the “cause”.

    I am not the lawyer in charge – so I am sure I am only thinking of a small fraction of the questions that will be asked and the documents that will be asked for.

    But have I answered your question?

  692. #694 RickA
    January 5, 2017

    Wow 691 and 692:

    Read these links to learn that Steyn claims he answered Dr. Mann’s interrogatories – but discovery was stayed pending appeal and as a consequence – Dr. Mann has not yet answered Steyn’s:

    http://www.steynonline.com/6910/mann-vs-steyn-the-state-of-play

    http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6258.pdf

    http://www.steynonline.com/documents/7531.pdf

  693. #695 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    And another howler from dick:

    “1. You don’t normally produce documents at a deposition”

    cf earlier:

    “I believe Steyn has already answered interrogatories and document production”

    ROFL!

  694. #696 dean
    leedwitt@gmail.com
    January 5, 2017

    I will assume that steyn’s lawyers will have been in discussion with someone who actually understands principal component analysis, which rickA clearly –based on his possible questions — does not.

  695. #697 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    Now, having demonstrated that dick either doesn’t know what he’s saying, or doesn’t care that he disagrees with himself, the highlights of the rest of the bollocks from dick’s anus:

    3. I expect the defendants to ask questions that go to the issues of opinion

    However, the claims are not claims of opinion, but claims of provable fact. Void.

    a question could be why did Dr. Mann lie to the panel about having determined the R squared (R2) statistic?

    Leading question, presumes a lie, please disregard that question, and if the defence does not clean up its act, you will be sanctioned by the court.

    Void.

    5. For example – why didn’t Dr. Mann publish the R2 statistic in MBH98 (or was it 99)

    Irrelevant, since this is no evidence of fraud by Dr Mann. If the defence insists on wasting the court’s time, you will be found in contempt.

    Void.

    6. For example – why use decentered PCA?

    Irrelevant, since this is no evidence of fraud by Dr Mann. If the defence insists on wasting the court’s time, you will be found in contempt.

    Void.

    7. For example – why only use two (or was it three) components in the PCA for MBH98

    Irrelevant, since this is no evidence of fraud by Dr Mann. If the defence insists on wasting the court’s time, you will be found in contempt.

    Void.

    And so on.

    Lots and lots of questions which go to the issue of whether Dr. Mann manipulated data

    The court is addressing whether Steyn libelled Dr Mann in his claims, none of which is allowed to presume Dr Mann committed fraud in the defendants’ defence. If all the “evidence” was that you wanted to question Dr Mann, you had no reason to believe he committed fraud and you have therefore libeled Dr Mann.

    I am sure Dr. Mann’s lawyer will come up with lots of questions to Mr. Steyn – but I haven’t really thought about those issues

    Of course not. Because the judge has already had a damn good look and found that there’s no reasonable person who would consider any verdict other than to find for the plaintiff.

    And imagining fairy stories about how Mann could be made to prove himself innocent of charges NEVER MADE IN THIS COURT takes all your time and effort.

    They will ask for all emails related to MBH98

    This will be refused as if the defendant did not have this evidence at the time, he cannot use it to defend his claims at that time.

    and MBH99 and Mann 2008 and the WMO 1999 cover graph (sent or received)

    Which will be refused as the claims made by the defendants were regarding MBH1998, not any later graph.

    They will ask for any documents that mention getting rid or or minimizing the MWP.

    Which will be refused since this has already been investigated several times before, and the role of this court is not to void the findings of other inquiries made years earlier.

    They will ask for any documents related to using any scientific paper to help the “cause”.

    Which will be refused since
    a) this is a leading question
    b) has nothing to do with Steyn’s claims
    c) has already been investigated several times before, and the role of this court is not to void the findings of other inquiries made years earlier

    I am not the lawyer in charge – so I am sure I am only thinking of a small fraction of the questions that will be asked and the documents that will be asked for.

    However, the lawyers in charge will not want to lose the case by being found in contempt of court and angering the presiding judge, they will also know what they are allowed to ask in this case and will not let themselves fanciful imaginations of getting Mann to prove his guilt about MBH98 at his expense and without needing to provide any evidence themselves.

    In short, you don’t have to risk anything by making up your bullshit, and you insist your BS is “reason” to be of the opinion that Mann can still lose.

    You have been given here what the court will say to your specifics, and your non-specifics (odd how you ALWAYS fall into a drifting of of “and so on….” at the same spot) do not exist, therefore cannot be held up as reason for your hope.

  696. #698 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    I will assume that steyn’s lawyers will have been in discussion with someone who actually understands principal component analysis

    And will understand the law, unlike dick here, who is also risking nothing by talking bollocks.

  697. #699 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “Read these links to learn that Steyn claims he answered Dr. Mann’s interrogatories ”

    Yes, but he’s already lied many times before, such as with his insistence that Mann is a fraud.

  698. #700 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    dean: I will assume that steyn’s lawyers will have been in discussion with someone who actually understands principal component analysis, which rickA clearly –based on his possible questions — does not.”

    If the defendants wish to understand PCA they should read Dr. Mann’s book: Mann explained PCA brilliantly.

  699. #701 MikeN
    January 5, 2017

    Wow, you keep linking to #412, which starts a chain of referrals, and ultimately produces nothing.
    Is anyone else on here going to endorse Wow’s claim that Mann does not have to prove actual malice to win? Particularly since public figure is settled in this case.

    RickA, next step is they are pursuing another appeal. If they continue at 2+ years per appeal, then we are looking at discovery in 2022,

  700. #702 MikeN
    January 5, 2017

    Desertphile, Mann’s book also states that one of the investigations did not investigate him, and the hockey stick had nothing to do with it, yet he used it as an exoneration in his court brief.

  701. #703 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    @Brainstorms: “Funny how RickA got Steyn & Mann mixed up when he wrote #673. Swap the two and it reflects the current situation:”

    Alas, it is an ugly, spooky type of “funny.” Sociologists and psychologists have been studying the behavior since the late 1970s; their conclusions are terrifying, and bode ill for humanity’s long-0term survival.

  702. #704 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “Wow, you keep linking to #412,”

    No, I keep referring back to “somewhere about” 412.

    Given you aren’t able of getting such a simple scenario correct, I guess this is why you get so much wrong.

  703. #705 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    “t one of the investigations ”

    Would that be investigation #412?

    Would you care to provide the actual investigation and the actual claim from Mann’s book? We have just above an example that shows you are not a reliable recollector of past writings.

  704. #706 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    wow: “Yup, because as far as his disability lets him know, reality is merely opinion. What’s REALLY spooky is that he doesn’t understand why his “ideas” aren’t gaining traction.”

    He will believe that pro-science people reject his alternate reality out of our political convictions because he rejects reality based on his political conviction: it is a form of projection.

    Even when we hate the facts, pro-science people state the facts; when “ricka” and his ilk don’t like the facts, they reject them. There are almost one dozen surveys and studies on this phenomena.

    Sociologists and psychologists have said every human being does this; skeptics do it the least amount, as we tend to aggressively seek out that which contradicts what we accept as true. We constantly test our conclusions. Denialists like “ricka” do the exact opposite.

  705. #707 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    ” Particularly since public figure is settled in this case.”

    No it isn’t, any more than it’s been settled that Steyn is guilty, or that Simberg and CEI have admitted their piece was a lie.

  706. #708 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    ricka: ““I believe Steyn has already answered interrogatories and document production”

    I believe Jennifer Lawrence secretly lusts after my body.

  707. #709 Desertphile
    January 5, 2017

    ricka: “Read these links to learn that Steyn claims he answered Dr. Mann’s interrogatories “

    Read message 708 above and learn that I claimed Jennifer Lawrence lusts for me.

    Now what?

  708. #710 Wow
    January 5, 2017

    Well, that’s proof enough for dick. And mike, uh dick, uh, whoever.

    And so what if Jen is of a different opinion? That’s just her opinion, she needs to ask someone like you what is going on.

  709. #711 Locus
    January 5, 2017

    #707

    Mann has been determined by the courts to be a public figure. Even his own lawyers agreed. Quote from the Court of Appeals decision.

    “The parties agree, as do we, that Dr. Mann is a limited public figure with respect to statements about global warming because he has assumed a role in “the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of
    the issues involved.” Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345.”

    Wow is a pathological liar.

  710. #712 Locus
    January 5, 2017

    #664

    Here’s an example of the “expert” legal advice offered by Wow on Bickmore’s blog.

    We were discussing this quote from one of Judge Weisberg’s rulings.

    “Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on Count VII against the National Review defendants, and their special motion of those defendants to dismiss Count VII as well as their Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will also be denied.”

    Now check out Wow’s analysis …

    “Yes, but this is a disposition to deny the motion to summarily dismiss. The ones demanding this are the plaintiffs. Dumbass.”

    Got that? According to Wow the terms ‘plaintiff’ and ‘defendant’ keep bouncing around between the parties like a ping-pong ball. But even worse how in the hell can he claim that the plaintiff is the National Review when the judge specifically mentioned the “National Review defendants”? Did NR sue itself.

    Wow knows absolutely nothing about American libel law. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. And yet the other idiots on this blog take him seriously. Unreal.

  711. #713 Locus
    January 6, 2017

    #696

    Ian Jolliffe on the use of PCA in the Hockey Stick,


    Apologies if this is not the correct place to make these comments. I am a complete newcomer to this largely anonymous mode of communication. I’d be grateful if my comments could be displayed wherever it is appropriate for them to appear.

    It has recently come to my notice that on the following website, http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/pca-part-4-non-centered-hockey-sticks/ .. , my views have been misrepresented, and I would therefore like to correct any wrong impression that has been given.

    An apology from the person who wrote the page would be nice.

    In reacting to Wegman’s criticism of ‘decentred’ PCA, the author says that Wegman is ‘just plain wrong’ and goes on to say ‘You shouldn’t just take my word for it, but you *should* take the word of Ian Jolliffe, one of the world’s foremost experts on PCA, author of a seminal book on the subject. He takes an interesting look at the centering issue in this presentation.’ It is flattering to be recognised as a world expert, and I’d like to think that the final sentence is true, though only ‘toy’ examples were given. However there is a strong implication that I have endorsed ‘decentred PCA’. This is ‘just plain wrong’.

    The link to the presentation fails, as I changed my affiliation 18 months ago, and the website where the talk lived was closed down. The talk, although no longer very recent – it was given at 9IMSC in 2004 – is still accessible as talk 6 at http://www.secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/itj201/RecentTalks.html
    It certainly does not endorse decentred PCA. Indeed I had not understood what MBH had done until a few months ago. Furthermore, the talk is distinctly cool about anything other than the usual column-centred version of PCA. It gives situations where uncentred or doubly-centred versions might conceivably be of use, but especially for uncentred analyses, these are fairly restricted special cases. It is said that for all these different centrings ‘it’s less clear what we are optimising and how to interpret the results’.

    I can’t claim to have read more than a tiny fraction of the vast amount written on the controversy surrounding decentred PCA (life is too short), but from what I’ve seen, this quote is entirely appropriate for that technique. There are an awful lot of red herrings, and a fair amount of bluster, out there in the discussion I’ve seen, but my main concern is that I don’t know how to interpret the results when such a strange centring is used? Does anyone? What are you optimising? A peculiar mixture of means and variances? An argument I’ve seen is that the standard PCA and decentred PCA are simply different ways of describing/decomposing the data, so decentring is OK. But equally, if both are OK, why be perverse and choose the technique whose results are hard to interpret? Of course, given that the data appear to be non-stationary, it’s arguable whether you should be using any type of PCA.

    I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics. Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally. It is possible that there are good reasons for decentred PCA to be the technique of choice for some types of analyses and that it has some virtues that I have so far failed to grasp, but I remain sceptical.

    Ian Jolliffe”

    https://climateaudit.org/2008/09/08/ian-jolliffe-comments-at-tamino/

  712. #714 Julian Frost
    Gauteng North
    January 6, 2017

    I have just read RickA’s comment #693 and Wow’s response #697 to RickA’s hypothetical questions.
    RickA, I do not believe your claim to be a lawyer. Any halfway competent lawyer would have realised that your hypothetical questions presume facts not in evidence and/or are irrelevant, and wouldn’t have asked them. The fact that you did tells me that you know precious little about legal process.

  713. #715 Locus
    January 6, 2017

    #676

    If Steyn’s counterclaim goes forward Mann will have to answer Steyn’s discovery requests.

    Even Judge Weisberg had to note what a sniveling little two-faced rat Michael Mann is,

    “Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay discovery and argues that, at a minimum, the court should permit him to proceed with discovery against Defendant Steyn… Beyond that, Plaintiff takes the ironic – albeit legally correct – position that he should be able to proceed with discovery against Steyn, but Steyn should be precluded from taking discovery on his counterclaim because Plaintiff’s anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss the counterclaim triggers an automatic statutory stay.”

    Mann wants discovery from everyone else but cringes and begs the judge to prevent discovery of him. What a twat.

  714. #716 Locus
    January 6, 2017

    Hey RickA,

    If you beat up on Wow too much he’ll start crying like a little pussy and ask the blogger to take down all the comments so people can’t see him getting his tits kicked in.

    “Barry, if you want to delete Loco nutbar’s spamming posts feel free to delete them and my responses.”

    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/mark-steyns-genius-legal-gambit/#comments

  715. #717 Locus
    January 6, 2017

    #664

    Wow categorically refuses to accept ANYTHING that doesn’t comport with his fantasies. When I posted a quote from a document hosted at Mann’s law firm, Williams Lopatto, Wow tried to claim that Williams were themselves deniers.

    “You’ve linked denier blogrolls and those of other politically motivated hacks blogging on personal opinion, not in official capacity or factual reporting basis.”

    Honestly how fucked up does Wow have to be to think that Mann’s own attorneys are “deniers”.

  716. #718 Locus
    January 6, 2017

    #709 #694

    As usual RickA is right. Steyn filed his answer to Mann’s discovery request on Feb 21, 2014. Here’s the docket entry,

    02/21/2014 Answer with Counter Claim Filed Defendant Steyn’s Answer and Counterclaims to Amended Complaint Filed. Submitted 02/21/2014 16:33. ts.
    Attorney: PRO SE (999999)
    MARK STEYN (Defendant); Receipt: 274580 Date: 02/24/2014

    And as usual Wow and Desertphile and the rest of the dipshits on this blog were just stalling to weasel their way out of a fair argument.

    What a bunch of cunts.

  717. #719 BBD
    January 6, 2017

    RickA

    6. For example – why use decentered PCA?

    7. For example – why only use two (or was it three) components in the PCA for MBH98.

    Long ago shown to be a non-issue, like every single other confected denier attack on MBH98 / 99 and Mann.

    Wahl & Ammann (2007) tested MBH 98 methodology with and without PCA and gets essentially the same result:

    A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed. In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region. When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion.

    This is how it will go with every single one of the denier talking points you list.

    How do you think this will be viewed by a jury (idealised rational jury)?

  718. #720 BBD
    January 6, 2017

    What a bunch of cunts.

    Thank you for your kind words, Locus.

  719. #721 BBD
    January 6, 2017

    RickA

    3. I expect the defendants to ask questions that go to the issues of opinion, truth, data manipulation and hockey stick graphs.

    If the hockey stick graph of MBH 98 (99) was ‘fraudulent’ as Steyn explicitly claims, then subsequent studies using different methodologies would have produced markedly different results. They did not.

    Instead, all subsequent millennial climate reconstructions essentially confirm MBH 98 (99).

    This is arguably proof that the HS is not ‘fraudulent’ and that Steyn’s claim is false. The detailed questioning you enumerate at #693 and previously isn’t just unnecessary, it is deliberately obfuscatory.

    Hopefully, the judge will not allow the defence to confuse the jury in such a fashion.

  720. #722 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    This is how it will go with every single one of the denier talking points you list.

    How do you think this will be viewed by a jury (idealised rational jury)?

    And how will it go with the judge when they’re asked these questions DESPITE ALREADY HAVING LOST THEIR ARGUMENT in the motions to dismiss?

    “Yes, your honour, we don’t think three judges have a lick of sense in them, so we want to ask what they decided had already been looked into and found ineligible as evidence, because we’re hoping that someone dumb enough would think otherwise”.

    There IS one up side to all this bollocks, though. ANY time a denier demands an investigation into some scientist, we can point to this as proof that there’s no point, since only a jury verdict is acceptable, and any investigation’s results will be ineligible as evidence on the subject.

  721. #723 RickA
    United States
    January 6, 2017

    Locus #718:

    Thank you for your spirited defence.

    The docket entry you cited is actually a pleading and not a discovery response.

    Discovery responses are not filed with the court, but just exchanged with the other parties – so there will be no docket entry for serving interrogatories or answering interrogatories, and ditto for document production requests and responses or deposition notices.

    We will have to rely on the parties themselves to post about discovery.

    Steyn is posting regularly when something noteworthy happens, so I am sure we will hear when depositions are scheduled.

    I am really looking forward to reading the transcript of Dr. Mann’s depositions.

  722. #724 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    Oh, and don’t sweat loco here, he’s a nutbar.

  723. #725 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    This is arguably proof that the HS is not ‘fraudulent’ and that Steyn’s claim is false.

    And, since this is about whether Steyn libeled Mann, negates the “But I believe the HS *is* a fraud!”, since to ignore all the evidence would be proof of actual malice.

    Remember, this isn’t a case against Mann for his Hockey Stick work, but against Steyn for libel.

  724. #726 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    Nobody is avoiding anything. We haven’t gotten to the discovery stage yet, loco nutbar. As dick here keeps prattling on, more discovery can be made at the point it passes all of Steyn’s attempts to avoid a jury and the display of evidence.

  725. #727 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “I am really looking forward to reading the transcript of Dr. Mann’s depositions.”

    Only because your fantasy is filling in what you want to be there, dick.

  726. #728 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    Meanwhile I’m looking forward to reading Steyn’s depositions, should be hilarious with all the “But I ignored that” and “I was talking to” (who would also be deposed to find out if there were more idiots trying to kill Mann’s career. And NRI’s payments from other organisations to keep up the attack on Dr Mann. Not to mention the same embarrasing crap from CEI And Simberg!

  727. #729 RickA
    January 6, 2017

    BBD #721:

    You are defending the “science” – namely that temperatures were relatively flat for the last X years (the stick) with a sharp rise in the last Y years (the blade).

    So you are focused on how all the other work is consistent with Dr. Mann’s work.

    I get that and I understand what you are saying.

    But the issue for this defamation trial isn’t whether Dr. Mann was right – it is all about how he created his hockey stick graph and why he created it. It is about each and every decision which was made as part of creating the graph.

    Each proxy, each period, each orientation, each statistical technique and his motivations for each decision will be examined.

    All of that goes to the affirmative defence of truth.

    It is still possible that Steyn could win this case just on the basis that what he said could be found to be permissible opinion.

    My bias is that I don’t think Steyn defamed Mann.

    I have a point of view and a preferred outcome.

    But I don’t KNOW what the jury will decide.

    I am just making up topics which I would ask about – but that doesn’t mean those topics will be raised at deposition – just that I would raise them.

    We are all just speculating, for fun, while we wait for the case to be decided.

    As a patent attorney, I just find legal discussions interesting – even if it is outside my area of expertise.

    That is why I also chime in on 2nd amendment threads – because I find the legal issues interesting.

  728. #730 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “All of that goes to the affirmative defence of truth.”

    No it doesn’t. Because this isn’t a court case against Mann, it’s a court case against Steyn.

    “My bias is that I don’t think Steyn defamed Mann.”

    All three judges who have looked at the case including the information you are so eager to see, say you’re wrong.

    “But I don’t KNOW what the jury will decide.”

    You keep saying this, but you never act any other way than you KNOW what they will decide.

    “I am just making up topics which I would ask about ”

    And we’re telling you why they won’t be asked by these people, because, unlike you, they could be in jail for contempt by trying it. You see, unlike you, we expect at least the lawyers to be sane and understand both the law and this case.

    “We are all just speculating, for fun”

    Why do you want to seek fun here? And are you having it? Because it doesn’t appear to be the case.

    Remember, “we” have our reasons, you don’t get to tell us what they are.

    “As a patent attorney”

    Yeah, you’re not, though.

    ” I just find legal discussions interesting”

    No you don’t, you’d listen otherwise. You want to defend deniers “right” to make shit up to stop AGW being accepted.

    “That is why I also chime in on 2nd amendment threads”

    No, that’s why you’re chiming in on the 2nd amendment to avoid a denier tactic being shown to be untenable and risky to the deniers, you’ve only commented on this one, and only to defend Steyn’s “right” to libel, and not Mann’s right to publish science.

    You were NOWHERE when ANY of the calls for investigation of Mann were made, NOWHERE when he was being silenced by government. You’re only here when a fellow denier is in trouble of having to face the consequences of his felonious act.

  729. #731 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “My bias is that I don’t think Steyn defamed Mann.”

    Why?

  730. #732 RickA
    United States
    January 6, 2017

    Wow #731:

    I read the Steyn piece (I only saw the Simberg piece after the suit).

    I think it is permissible opinion. That doesn’t mean the jury will agree, but that is what I think. If the jury agrees it is permissible opinion than my opinion will be shown to be correct, and if not, my opinion will be shown to be incorrect.

    I think that Mann engaged in data manipulation. So that statement is the truth. Computing the R2 statistic and not publishing it is data manipulation in my opinion – so just that, if shown to be true prevents defamation.

    I think that Mann’s graph was created with an eye towards making it the best graph to support the cause – in other words it was created as a piece of propaganda. I think Dr. Mann tried numerous iterations of the graph, with various proxies, different periods for each proxy and tweaked it until it was the best damn graph he could create, to try to show that recent warming was unprecedented. That makes it fraudulent in my opinion. So truth is a defence against defamation for that statement/opinion as well. Hence the censored directory.

    There is more – but that is why I think Dr. Mann will lose.

    Defamation is a very hard claim to win on in the USA – especially for a public figure and Dr. Mann has an uphill battle.

    I am quite confident that he will lose – but we will have to wait to see if my opinion holds water or not.

  731. #733 Desertphile
    January 6, 2017

    @Julian Frost: “I have just read RickA’s comment #693 and Wow’s response #697 to RickA’s hypothetical questions.
    RickA, I do not believe your claim to be a lawyer.”

    Hee! Funny! This is like saying “Garth Brooks, I don’t believe your claim to be a singer:” it’s self-evident he isn’t.

  732. #734 Desertphile
    January 6, 2017

    ricka: “3. I expect the defendants to ask questions that go to the issues of opinion, truth, data manipulation and hockey stick graphs.”

    Non sequitur. The issue is libel. See?

  733. #735 Chris O'Neill
    January 6, 2017

    to try to show that recent warming was unprecedented

    which of course virtually every new hockeystick since then has shown.

  734. #736 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “I think it is permissible opinion”

    Its “permitted” for you to think wearing your skidmarks on your head makes you look dashing, and that the Great Green Arklesiezure has anointed you Pope Of The Galaxy.

    But that isn’t why you would think that. Insanity is why you would think that.

    So, I ask AGAIN:

    “My bias is that I don’t think Steyn defamed Mann.”

    Why?

  735. #737 Desertphile
    January 6, 2017

    @BBD: “This is arguably proof that the HS is not ‘fraudulent’ and that Steyn’s claim is false. The detailed questioning you enumerate at #693 and previously isn’t just unnecessary, it is deliberately obfuscatory. “

    Two out of three judges concluded the defendants had ample evidence showing there is nothing fraudulent about “the” so-called “hockey stick:” the defendants demonstrated enough knowledge to show they were familiar with that evidence.

    It’s not even an issue and has not been for almost two years. The judges already concluded that +the defendants knew their claims were and are false; the only issue left is one of malice. Dr. Mann jumped over all First Amendment hurdles and all anti-SLAPP hurdles.

    A summary judgement would have found in Dr Mann’s favor two years ago. The defendants know this fact: the judges said so.

  736. #738 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “I think that Mann engaged in data manipulation.”

    Why?

  737. #739 BBD
    January 6, 2017

    RickA

    But the issue for this defamation trial isn’t whether Dr. Mann was right – it is all about how he created his hockey stick graph and why he created it. It is about each and every decision which was made as part of creating the graph.

    I do not accept your argument that you can separate the methodology from the results. The one leads to the other.

    Since the HS has been validated many times since MBH 98 (99), there can be no valid attack on the methodology that created it.

    I think that Mann engaged in data manipulation.

    This is self-evidently false. If he did, then subsequent millennial reconstructions would have differed substantially from MBH 98 (99) but they didn’t.

    Surely you can see that what you are suggesting is nonsense?

  738. #740 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    Note: going on about what you “think” he did isn’t saying why you think he engaged in data manipulation. Underpants on head scenario, remember.

    Because doing just more “I think” means you think it was fraud because you think it was fraud, and you are in reckless disregard for the truth, the dozen other reconstructions, the dozen investigations into the data records, are all real, they REALLY DID HAPPEN.

    And insisting that you think it is still a fraud despite all that evidence otherwise is

    a) 100% the definition of denial
    b) reckless disregard for the truth

  739. #741 Chris O'Neill
    January 6, 2017

    That makes it fraudulent

    Of course to be fraudulent something needs to be false. The MBH98/99 hockeystick agrees with subsequent hockeysticks so it can’t be false.

  740. #742 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “Surely you can see that what you are suggesting is nonsense?”

    He can, but he’s in denial and in reckless disregard of the truth. He doesn’t *think* it was a fraud, he BELIEVES it, the same way an ISIS fellow BELIEVES that Allah wants him to behead infidels. And exactly as insane. There’s no thinking going on, only a belief despite all evidence.

  741. #743 BBD
    January 6, 2017

    I think that Mann’s graph was created with an eye towards making it the best graph to support the cause – in other words it was created as a piece of propaganda. I think Dr. Mann tried numerous iterations of the graph, with various proxies, different periods for each proxy and tweaked it until it was the best damn graph he could create, to try to show that recent warming was unprecedented.

    No, that’s just what comes out of the data. This has been demonstrated repeatedly using different proxies and different methodologies. Your claim is falsified.

    That makes it fraudulent in my opinion.

    And your opinion easily shown to be mistaken.

    So why won’t you revise it?

  742. #744 Desertphile
    January 6, 2017

    Wow: “There IS one up side to all this bollocks, though. ANY time a denier demands an investigation into some scientist, we can point to this as proof that there’s no point, since only a jury verdict is acceptable, and any investigation’s results will be ineligible as evidence on the subject.”

    The cults are wagering the whole shebang on confusing and deceiving a jury. They are also deliberately increasing the costs of the law suit in the hope that Dr. Mann will have to pay it all.

    After Dr Mann wins the litigation he must still some how force the defendants to pay up: that often takes decades, and more often never gets paid.

  743. #745 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    ” “That makes it fraudulent”

    Of course to be fraudulent something needs to be false”

    But it also presumes that what he claims he thinks happened ACTUALLY happened. Which EVERY lawyer, and most non lawyers, know is inadmissable as a cause to question.

    If what he “thinks” happened, didn’t, then his statement becomes “This makes it not fraudulent”, and everything falls down.

    Dick merely parrots Steyn’s argument, one crafted to keep suckers like him supporting him and funding his case.

    The fraud is a matter of religious dogma to Dick and the other deniers.

  744. #746 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “And your opinion easily shown to be mistaken.

    So why won’t you revise it?”

    Because he thinks that all he has to have is a permissible opinion and he never has to change it. He thinks that being allowed to think it means it’s valid and unassailable.

    He’s a fruitloop.

  745. #747 Desertphile
    January 6, 2017

    ricka: “I am really looking forward to reading the transcript of Dr. Mann’s depositions.”

    Wow: “Only because your fantasy is filling in what you want to be there, dick.”

    The clown still wants us to believe they he believes Dr Mann will be deposed, even though the *ONLY* issue for discovery involves who exactly wrote the libel and who exactly published it. Dr. Mann has nothing at all to say regarding these two issues. The cultists’ lawyers must have told the defendants this fact several times already.

  746. #748 Desertphile
    January 6, 2017

    Ricka: “My bias is that I don’t think Steyn defamed Mann.”

    Wow: “Why?”

    *CRICKETS*

  747. #749 RickA
    United States
    January 6, 2017

    BBD #739:

    People can have a wrong analysis and still end up with the correct result.

    Happens all the time.

    In this case, I do not believe that Mann’s claim that recent warming compared to warming over the last 1000 years is unprecedented is correct.

    But beyond that – I believe the details of how he arrived at his reconstruction(s) and his graph(s) permits Steyn to rely on truth as a defense to his opinion piece.

    That is my view.

    #743:

    I don’t change my opinion because it hasn’t changed yet.

    It is as simple as that.

    We should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

  748. #750 Desertphile
    January 6, 2017

    Rika: “I think that Mann engaged in data manipulation”

    No, you do not. You want us the think you believe that.

  749. #751 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “BBD #739:

    People can have a wrong analysis and still end up with the correct result.”

    That;s just blind faith.

    Not reason.

    “We should just agree to disagree and leave it at that.”

    But you haven’t.

    “But beyond that – I believe the details of how he arrived at his reconstruction(s) and his graph(s) permits Steyn to rely on truth as a defense to his opinion piece.”

    No, it doesn’t, since this is about actual malice in libel, not whether Mann is a fraud. Since it’s not an investigation into Mann and his work, this is irrelevant.

    “In this case, I do not believe that Mann’s claim that recent warming compared to warming over the last 1000 years is unprecedented is correct.”

    Why?

  750. #752 Chris O'Neill
    January 6, 2017

    That makes it fraudulent in my opinion. So truth is a defence against defamation for that statement/opinion as well.

    Opinion is not proof of truth. Steyn needs to prove fraud to have a defence of truth.

  751. #753 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “Rika: “I think that Mann engaged in data manipulation”

    No, you do not. You want us the think you believe that.”

    Even if he did, since there’s no actual reason to do so, this would not be a defence against a libel claim.

    Dick thinks it because he thinks it. Circular reasoning only used by the mentally retarded and the fervent nutcase.

  752. #754 Wow
    January 6, 2017

    “Opinion is not proof of truth. Steyn needs to prove fraud to have a defence of truth.”

    Which gets us back to waaaay up the thread where we were asking what evidence Steyn could have in his posession that would prove reasonable doubt in the normal adult human being that there was fraud committed.

    And so far, even dick here has gone “Well, Steyn will get that in discovery!”. Well, it’s too late by then. This is years after he made the claim, and if he didn’t have the evidence then, he sure as shit has lost the case.

  753. #755 RickA
    January 6, 2017

    Wow #730:

    You asked “Why do you want to seek fun here? And are you having it? Because it doesn’t appear to be the case.”

    Of course I am having fun here.

    Or I wouldn’t be here posting.

    I assume that is why you are here also – or else why are you posting so much?

    I am a lawyer.

    I like to argue.

    It is fun.

    I am also very opinionated.

    I find an issue I am interested in, research it, come to a conclusion about it and then if something comes up on a blog which I think is wrong or which I disagree with – I write a post.

    I have posted about the right to die, the right to treat oneself medically (even if a drug isn’t FDA approved), 2nd amendment issues, political issues, climate issues, gay marriage, transgender bathroom laws, and many others I am sure.

    I don’t care if others agree with me or not – I just like to put my opinion out there and then argue about it.

    So yes – I am having fun.

  754. #756 Chris O'Neill
    January 6, 2017

    People can have a wrong analysis and still end up with the correct result.

    Regardless of analysis the result, the MBH99 hockeystick, is not false so the MBH99 hockeystick is not fraudulent.

  755. #757 BBD
    January 6, 2017

    RickA

    People can have a wrong analysis and still end up with the correct result.

    Happens all the time.

    Actually, it’s very rare. Would you care to provide five examples in support of your claim that it ‘happens all the time’?

    I reject this as specious.

    In this case, I do not believe that Mann’s claim that recent warming compared to warming over the last 1000 years is unprecedented is correct.

    Please list your references supporting this claim.

  756. #758 RickA
    January 6, 2017

    Wow #751 said ““In this case, I do not believe that Mann’s claim that recent warming compared to warming over the last 1000 years is unprecedented is correct.”

    Why?”

    We are comparing actual temperature records with proxy records.

    It is my belief that proxy records mute and average the actual temperatures.

    It is my belief that if we went back in time and sprinkled thermometers around the Earth in the same places as they are now, and gathered temperature data as we do now (and adjusted it as we do now – for time of observation for example) and then compared that temperature data to current temperature data that we would find that in fact that current global temperatures are not unprecedented compared to historical temperatures.

    To bad we cannot go back in time.

    But in the meantime – comparing thermometer readings with tree rings is just inherently very very imprecise.

    For example, what effect does it have on a tree ring if it is hot and dry that year? Or cold and wet that year?

    How much of a tree ring is precipitation related and not temperature related?

    Each proxy has its own issues.

    None of them are as good as actually getting a thermometer readings – I hope we can at least agree on that.

    In order to compare apples to apples – we should wait 1000 years and then gather tree ring data and compare the temperature reconstruction of the last 1000 years (2000 – 3000 AD) with the temperature reconstruction of 1000 – 2000 AD.

    Than we can speak of relative temperatures.

    But I kind of think comparing thermometer readings to tree rings is just bogus.

    Also the divergence is a glaring problem with comparing tree rings with thermometer readings.

    Those are my thoughts.

  757. #759 BBD
    January 6, 2017

    One other wrinkle here:

    People can have a wrong analysis and still end up with the correct result.

    MBH 98 (and 99) was the first multicentennial reconstruction of its kind.

    Please explain how Mann *knew* what the right result (that which would be validated by all subsequent reconstructions)