78 thoughts on “The Mann Legal Front”

  1. “Defendant Steyn has been in many courtrooms in his native Canada and many other parts of the British Commonwealth and has never seen a case so procedurally bungled.” and “As readers may have deduced by my absence from National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team.”

    Is he a lawyer or does he just get up everyone’s noses?

    1. I recall that there was some small internal dust-up over one of Steyn’s columns a week or so ago, but I didn’t realize anything more had come of it.

  3. “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”

    Part of today’s ruling by Judge Frederick Weisberg:
    The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury. A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal.

    Ouch!

    http://rabett.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/mann-vs-steyn-lurches-forward.html

    1. Yet one defense against an accusation of libel is that the claim is factually true, and almost everyone but die hard warmists certainly believe the claim to be true, and with quite a bit of evidence to back it up. Even Mann’s fellow insiders on the “team” wrote to each other saying he was sloppy and that many of his papers were junk.

      From the commentator:

      Responding to Mann’s New York Times op-ed, which was entitled “If you see something, say something.”, McKitrick retorted:

      “OK, I see a second-rate scientist carrying on like a jackass and making a public nuisance of himself.”

      [Fred] Singer plainly thinks this is far too tame: “OK, I want to say something too,” he says.

      “I see an ideologue, desperately trying to support a hypothesis that’s been falsified by observations. While the majority of climate alarmists are trying to discover a physical reason that might just save the AGW hypothesis, Mann simply ignores the ‘inconvenient truth’ that the global climate has not warmed significantly for at least the past 15 years — while emissions of greenhouse gases have surged globally.”

      1. Yet one defense against an accusation of libel is that the claim is factually true, and almost everyone but die hard warmists certainly believe the claim to be true, and with quite a bit of evidence to back it up.

        Rubbish. You should read more widely, maybe you mean “almost everyone” at the blogs you follow.

        Even Mann’s fellow insiders on the “team” wrote to each other saying he was sloppy and that many of his papers were junk.

        There were errors in the paper that made no material difference to the conclusions other than the confidence level in the earlier part of the proxy temperature reconstruction.
        The conclusions have subsequently been verified by several papers by other authors.

        The Mann et al paper was the first palio NH temperature reconstruction of the magnitude and the comments I’ve seen from the NAS report authors are that the Mann et al paper was a huge achievement.

        1. The Mann et al paper was the first palio NH temperature reconstruction of the magnitude and the comments I’ve seen from the NAS report authors are that the Mann et al paper was a huge achievement.

          So what do you think of the allegations, which Mann has never bothered to dispute in court, that one could have taken random noise, use the same statistical methods Mann et al used, and get the same paleo NH temperature reconstruction in the modern era?

          2. No court case was filed, the assertion was just made through the normal scientific process, and borne out. The statistical technique Mann used is a hockey stick generator, which is why it suppressed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, a period which subsequent studies from very independent data sets not only keep confirming, but keep expanding in scope.

            After the statistical dust-up, which eventually led to testimony from statistics chairs that “the team” has no significant interactions with or input from the academic statistics community, came problems with selective sampling, data manipulation (including secret directories on their servers, e-mail notes, and such), and a long, ongoing saga of data manipulation, destruction, and cover-up.

            Anyone who’d followed the story would have no qualms about describing Michael Mann as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.

          3. I’ve followed the climate debate for 10 years, I’ve heard the accusations you refer to, I’ve seen them disproved.

            The statistical technique Mann used is a hockey stick generator, which is why it suppressed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period,

            So the one little thing you can do to make me look stoopid, is to link to a graph that uses the same data that Mann used, but using a statistical technique that doesn’t suppressed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, so revealing the truth of what you claim.

            I suggest you start by reading the Wegman report.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report#Interactions_between_climatologists_and_statisticians

            http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

        2. “I don’t mean to be the pessimist of the group here but Mc brought up some very good points about the original hockeystick. The confidence affirmed to it by many on our side of the debate was vastly overstated and as has been shown in the recent literature greater variability on the centennial scale exists than was shown. The statistical methodology used by Mann did rely too much on tree rings which still are in debate over their usefulness to reconstruct temperature and particularly their ability to record low-frequency temperature variations. I’ve personally seen work that is unpublished that challenges every single one of his reconstructions because they all either understate or overstate low-frequency variations. My personal experience has been that Moberg still has the best reconstruction and his one does show greater variability. That’s why I don’t like to talk the HS stuff, because I know a lot of people who have doubts about the accuracy of the original HS.
          Just like we complain about skeptics like Pielke and Christy etc letting their work be miscontrued, Mann et al stood by after their original HS and let others treat it with the confidence that they themselves couldn’t assign to it. They had just as much of a responsability to ensure their work was used to” – Robert Way, Skeptical Science

          “Mann’s science is mostly good and I certainly think that his papers have discussed most of the caveats. However his reconstruction failed certain statistics (can’t remember if it was r2 or RE) and even his newest reconstruction doesn’t validate past 1400 if you don’t include disputed series (which I have no idea why he’s including them at all). Lets make this clear. There is a hockey stick shape in the data, but the original hockey stick still used the wrong methods and these methods were defended over and over despite being wrong. Just because a better analysis (Wahl and Amman 2007) using the same data shows very little difference doesn’t change the fact that the technique was wrong. PCA isn’t the best choice anyways… but that’s irrelevant.” – Robert Way again

          and again: “I don’t think these are minor points. I think they get major points correct. MBH98 was not an example of someone using a technique with flaws and then as he learned better techniques he moved on… He fought like a dog to discredit and argue with those on the other side that his method was not flawed. And in the end he never admitted that the entire method was a mistake. Saying “I was wrong but when done right it gives close to the same answer” is no excuse. He never even said that but I’m just making a point. What happened was they used a brand new statistical technique that they made up and that there was no rationalization in the literature for using it. They got results which were against the traditional scientific communities view on the matters and instead of re-evaluating and checking whether the traditional statistics were valid (which they weren’t), they went on and produced another one a year later. They then let this HS be used in every way possible (including during the Kyoto protocol lead-up that resulted in canadian parliament signing the deal with many people ascribing their final belief in climate change being assured by the HS) despite knowing the stats behind it weren’t rock solid. Of course someone was going to come along and slam it. In the defense of the HS method they published things on RC like what I showed above where they clearly misrepresented the views of the foremost expert on PCA in atmospheric sciences who basically says that Mann’s stats were dubious.”

          The quotes are all from http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/, from the secret SkS forum. They won’t say it in public, but in private they are struggling to deal with a big embarrassment to their field.

      2. The paper’s conclusions have been debunked by numerous other reconstructions that show that not only was the Medieval Warm Period real, it was global. A lot of his other papers are what drew the dismissive comments from his fellow team members. His most recent was an attempt to rectify issues in his reconstructions by building a computer model of a tree that doesn’t lay down growth rings during cold years, flying in the face of completely accepted botany. In fact, plant scientists couldn’t get a response from the team when they were pointing out that growth rings can’t be used as a temperature proxy.

        Other problems with using trees are that they also respond to CO2 directly, along with nutrients, forest position, and grow faster the bigger they get which tends to make an artificial warming signal (just published a few weeks ago). And of course there’s the problem that most of the warming in “global warming” has been an increase in nighttime temperature, not daytime temperatures, and trees aren’t doing much photosynthesizing at 2:00 AM.

        1. Good thing the tree ring proxies aren’t used in other reconstructions that support the hockey-stick then.
          The paper’s conclusions have been debunked by numerous other reconstructions that show that not only was the Medieval Warm Period real, it was global.

          MBH 1999 shows NH temperatures warmer around 1000AD – 1250 AD than at any other time up to the early twentieth century (though with low confidence)

          http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/Was-there-a-Medieval-Warm-Period.html

          1. From Way from that post again:

            -On Mann et al 2008-
            McIntryre: Previously, in August 2010, Cook had (Authors/2010-08-10-List of rebuttals and who’s doing what) set out a list of rebuttals, eventually leading to this page. Way withdrew his previous “dibs” on Climate’s changed before. He warned potential authors to stay away from Mann et al 2008 since “much as I hate to admit it they are right about the issue of the study failing verification statistics past 1500 for one”:
            Way: “I was going to do #2 Climate’s changed before but have now decided I will stay away from it for now. I was wondering if you could remove my dibs. Also I have to tell you that you should warn those doing that particular one to stay away from Mann’s 2008 paper if they take this topic as it seems it has actually been invalidated by climate audit (as much as I hate to admit it they are right about the issue of the study failing verification statistics past 1500 for one)”

            McIntyre:At the time, we had just learned (via a sly inline comment at RC by Gavin Schmidt) that Mann had already conceded that the Mann et 2008 no-dendro reconstruction did not pass his own verification methods. Way reported this as follows:
            Way: “So what this means is that Under either method (CPS or EIV) it is not possible to get a validated reconstruction to before 1500 without the use of tree rings, or the Tijlander sediments. The tijlander sediments were used incorrectly and upside down from the original published version and a corrigendum by Kaufmann et al. (who also used it upside down) was issued pertaining to this. http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/26/the-kaufman-corrigendum/
            I’m not one of those climate audit junkees and I certainly disagree with how Mcintyre handles a lot of the stuff but I’ve been shown before by even climatology profs in my university time that it might be best to stick clear of Mann’s reconstructions until the dust settles (although this debate has been going on for 10 years)”

            McIntyre: Despite Way’s warning, other SKS authors used the Mann et al 2008/2009 reconstruction in the SKS article on the Medieval period.

            http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/20/behind-the-sks-curtain/

        2. Why would you cite a 14-year old paper in a field that’s as dynamic as climate science? Oh, because more recent papers based on a wide variety of land and sea life can’t be cited without the risk of charges of heresy and possible excommunication.

          1. Because MBH 1998 only goes back to 1400AD, if we’re talking about Mann’s paper on the MWP MBH 1999 is the paper we’re talking about.

  4. Note that my quotes from Robert Way are from 2010 and 2011.

    Worth mentioning that all this is utterly beside the point as regards the libel suit. I challenge anyone on the other side to tell me with a straight face that they would support a libel suit against Huffington Post by Rush Limbaugh, even if the statements made about him in some editorial were equally wrong (say Politifact gave them three or four Pinocchios). Not only wouldn’t you support a libel suit, you would say that it’s insane to think about it – these kinds of statements are completely and totally within the regular range of political commentary in the US.
    Such statements are indeed frequently made about Judith Curry and Steve McIntyre, and are completely allowable, regardless of their accuracy. Freedom of Speech does not have an exception for speaking about scientists.

      1. No they don’t, because they have no basis for believing she committed fraud, and in fact they don’t believe it themselves (despite Michael Mann publicly calling her a “serial climate misinformer” and claiming she is anti-science). In Mann’s case, writers and editors would have to spend months wading through all the mountains of evidence, some of it pointed out in this very thread.

        Mann has kept a very high public profile on a major societal issue, and has left a trail of high questionable actions in pursuit of his dreams of a world empire of climatologists with himself at the helm. Were he to win in court, certainly Bush could then sue every left-wing media outlet that implied he’d ever lied, much less ones that called him a war criminal, and then the Republicans would own the left-wing media, and then of course left-wing blogs would all end up paying a fortune to George Zimmerman for calling him a child killer. 🙂

        1. “Were he to win in court, certainly Bush could then sue every left-wing media outlet that implied he’d ever lied, much less ones that called him a war criminal, and then the Republicans would own the left-wing media, and then of course left-wing blogs would all end up paying a fortune to George Zimmerman for calling him a child killer.”

          Much as I would love the spectacle of the Left being hoist by its own petard, we responsible folk understand that the tit-for-tat could quickly mushroom out of control, and who knows where the chips might fall in the end?

          (Yes, I am vying for one of Taranto’s “Metaphor Alerts”)

      2. “Do publications with the profile of the National Review routinely accuse Judith Curry of fraud?” Does it have to be that particular claim. How about Mann calling her a “serial disinformer”? Or a “denier”?
        Are you saying that Huffington Post is lower profile than National Review? So give me an example of a liberal publication that counts. The New Republic? The New York Times?
        And you’re missing the point. If they would say that about her, so what? That’s normal political discourse in America. That’s why groups like the ACLU have jumped in on various aspects of this suit: it’s obvious to anyone who really thinks about the issue of free speech that we really don’t want people suing for this kind of thing. This is an abuse of libel law designed to suppress speech.

        1. Does it have to be that particular claim

          It has to be a defamatory statement of fact.

          How about Mann calling her a “serial disinformer”? Or a “denier”?

          Those aren’t statements of fact, they’re name calling and statements of opinion.

          That’s normal political discourse in America.

          Accusing someone of scientific fraud isn’t “political discourse”.

          1. Accusing someone of scientific fraud is political discourse if you are involved in politics, not reviewing a scientific study or some such. Which of course is what was happening here.

            Whatever. It’s hard for me not to feel that your distinction is, I agree with this one and not that one.

          2. The lawsuit is actually about using Mann in a sentence where he’s somehow compared as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, referring to Penn State’s investigative abilities versus their propensity to whitewash. That there even was such an investigation for fraud says that the charge of fraud had already been leveled, and in such a way that it merited an official academic investigation.

            Mann’s lawsuit is like Chris Christie suing someone like Jay Leno for making a clever Bridgegate joke.

          3. The lawsuit is actually about using Mann in a sentence where he’s somehow compared as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, referring to Penn State’s investigative abilities versus their propensity to whitewash. That there even was such an investigation for fraud says that the charge of fraud had already been leveled, and in such a way that it merited an official academic investigation.

            I’m assuming that there was no accusation that fraud was a fact, rather than an opinion or suspicion.

            But again, if you have a link that contradicts what I suspect to be the case, link.

          4. Now why on Earth would Penn State start an official investigation if the accusation wasn’t one of fact, meaning that there would be something to find that violated standards of conduct, as opposed to uncovering some opinion like “Dick thinks Jane is b****”?

            From the Examiner

            The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

            My question: What does this say for the integrity of their entire department? It is hard to imagine that Mann was the only person involved in manipulating the data at Penn State. What other faculty, and perhaps even grad students were part of the scheme?

            That’s the kind of thing journalists were already writing about Michael Mann’s research and Penn State, and I would take the above as a pretty direct allegation. Are climatologists on the team the only people the press can’t talk about when they’re being investigated multiple times?

          5. Now why on Earth would Penn State start an official investigation if the accusation wasn’t one of fact, meaning that there would be something to find that violated standards of conduct, as opposed to uncovering some opinion like “Dick thinks Jane is b****”?

            Are you serious? You realize that not every time police investigate “suspicious circumstances” do they discover a crime has occurred?

            Investigations start on the basis of suspicion, prosecution and conviction may result after investigation, by your logic if prosecution and conviction don’t result after investigation the investigation was faulty or corrupt.

        1. Tweeting about Curry’s Senate testimony with an #AntiScience hash tag is not at all the same thing as accusing Curry of scientific misconduct. It’s the difference between saying that her views are bad for science, and saying that she falsified data in a published paper. One is an assertion of opinion, the other is an assertion of fact — the sort of fact that, if proven, would end her career.

          Do you see the distinction?

  5. “In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” is itself defamatory and
    parallels Mr. Simberg’s claim that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data.” Viewing the facts in
    the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff”

    That’s what is called failing a SLAPP motion.

    Well no doubt this will go to the Court of Appeals, The defense will argue Likely means a lot more
    then the Plaintiff or the judge did, and then the case will move to the next phase.

  6. Back in August I wrote, in reference to the lawsuit, that Rand had accused Mann of fraud.

    Rand replied: I see you continue to have trouble with reading comprehension.

    Judge Weisberg seems to share my trouble:

    A reasonable reader, both within and outside the scientific community, would understand that a scientist who molests or tortures his data is acting far outside the bounds of any acceptable scientific method. In context, it would not be unreasonable for a reader to interpret the comment, and the republication in National Review, as an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud, which Penn State University then covered up, just as some had accused the University of covering up the Sandusky scandal.

      1. The trouble is, the belief that Mann tortured and molested is data is widely believed and there’s a lot of evidence for it even from his own team. There are very solid reasons to believe he did so, and to win a libel case he not only has to prove that he didn’t torture and molest data, he has to prove that Rand and Steyn also didn’t believe that he did or that they acted with reckless disregard for truth.

        Well, obviously no court can possibly prove that because a person could spend years researching Mann’s conduct and still come away convinced that he knowingly and willingly committed scientific fraud on multiple occasions. I would be one of those people. Some of Mann’s colleges, if they could bring themselves to vote according to what they really think instead of their self-interest, would agree.

        As I’ve said, if anyone’s reputation has been harmed by the comparison, it’s Jerry Sandusky.

        1. The trouble is, the belief that Mann tortured and molested is data is widely believed …
          So there’s been a smear campaign against Mann that many people, believe because they want to believe, this doesn’t make the smear true.

          and there’s a lot of evidence for it even from his own team.

          This I wanna see. Link please, and those comments by Way are not suggestive of “an allegation that Dr. Mann had committed scientific fraud”.

          There are very solid reasons to believe he did so,

          Link please. People saying “he did so” after reading lots of blog posts insinuating this is not “very solid reasons to believe he did so”, anymore than lots of stories about Santa Claus is reason to believe that gentleman really exists, no matter how much little children wish it were so.

          and to win a libel case he not only has to prove that he didn’t torture and molest data, he has to prove that Rand and Steyn also didn’t believe that he did or that they acted with reckless disregard for truth.

          Given that there is no evidence of I expect no evidence torturing and molesting data, after multiple inquires, that won’t be a problem.

          Well, obviously no court can possibly prove that because a person could spend years researching Mann’s conduct and still come away convinced that he knowingly and willingly committed scientific fraud on multiple occasions.

          I don’t accept that, so it’s not “obviously” obvious to me.

          I would be one of those people.

          So, you obviously placed your bets a long time ago, your determination to continue to believe without evidence supporting that belief doesn’t make you “reasonable”.

          Some of Mann’s colleges, if they could bring themselves to vote according to what they really think instead of their self-interest, would agree.

          So you’re psychic? Your claim to such powers doesn’t enhance your claim to being reasonable.

        2. ” he not only has to prove that he didn’t torture and molest data, he has to prove that Rand and Steyn also didn’t believe that he did or that they acted with reckless disregard for truth.”

          1) you aren’t a lawyer, so you don’t actually know what the law says, and
          2) A judge has already twice ruled that it’s likely Mann has a case.

          1. @Andrew. So I guess you didn’t bother to download all the UEA e-mails. I downloaded the lot of them the day they were posted, and it was some fascinating reading. Then came the second batch, and even more questionable actions, which is why Penn State felt compelled to at least appear to conduct an official investigation, which had every appearance of being a whitewash because just about the only people they interviewed were Michael Mann and his buddies.

            Even The Atlantic said so, in no uncertain terms.

          2. @Andrew. So I guess you didn’t bother to download all the UEA e-mails. I downloaded the lot of them the day they were posted, and it was some fascinating reading. Then came the second batch, and even more questionable actions,

            Well all these questionable actions didn’t make it into blogland, or I would have come across them, or do you think “hide the decline” is somehow proof of fraud? Even though it’s been thrashed to death and even people totally unfamiliar with the science can now explain what it refers to and that it’s a long accepted technique? It’s use was comprehensively covered in the MBH papers and the IPCC reports.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

          3. Even The Atlantic said so, in no uncertain terms.

            “No uncertain terms” — you can’t be serious.

            Nothing in the linked article accuses Mann, or anyone else, of scientific fraud. The closest Crook comes is his claim that the ClimateGate emails reveal “an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption”. But an ethos is not remotely the same thing as an overt act of data molestation. Indeed, Crook goes on to criticize an investigation that “sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed”. Crook’s charge isn’t fraud, it’s that the emails have damaged the credibility of climate science.

            Again, where’s the evidence that Mann ever committed scientific fraud?

          5. Leland says :”So DN idiot; in your world, do they have trial by jury made up of peers? And if so, how do these function?”

            Well, you know, I only know Washington DC but here we have Juries in Criminal matters and some civil matters. The Jury is “The Finder of Fact” and the Judge is the “Ruler of Law”. So we have things where the Judge can issue a Summary Judgement or Directed Verdict if the facts are insufficient as a matter of law or the facts are not in dispute, or no legally sustainable argument is made

            I know you find that distressing, but, it is what it is, and it also matches the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

            So you can sit there and name call, which, is a popular thing to do, but,
            it won’t help you out if you happen to be on trial, which, is what Rand is in.

            Maybe Rand should try Telling Judge Weisberg that Judge Green was an idiot and that he hopes Judge Weisberg is smart and not an idiot.

            Maybe you can come down for a hearing and do the same.

          6. Maybe Rand should try Telling Judge Weisberg that Judge Green was an idiot and that he hopes Judge Weisberg is smart and not an idiot.

            That wouldn’t be very productive, but I’d be happy to tell him that you’re an idiot, and back it up with all of your comments here.

          7. So DN idiots response when its pointed out non-lawyers can figure out what the law says is that Judges also can figure out what the law says? Wow, he’s finally getting an education! DC schools suck, but at least DN has a place to come and learn.

        3. The trouble is, the belief that Mann tortured and molested is data is widely believed

          Presumably because people like Rand keep saying it. And you wonder why Mann filed suit?

          Imagine, if you can, being a scientist (or banker, or whatever) who hasn’t committed fraud, and who has been cleared by multiple investigations. But people who don’t like your politics repeatedly describe you as guilty of fraud, to the point that the charge is widely believed.

          What recourse should you have?

        4. to win a libel case he not only has to prove that he didn’t torture and molest data

          He can meet that burden by pointing out that he’s been investigated for that very accusation, and cleared. That shifts the burden of proof to the defendants.

          he has to prove that Rand and Steyn also didn’t believe that he did or that they acted with reckless disregard for truth

          The argument will be: Mann’s been cleared of fraud by multiple investigations, Rand and Steyn knew that, so continuing to label his work as fraudulent without any actual evidence of fraud showed reckless disregard for the truth.

          1. Wrong. There is no burden of proof on the defendants.

            If the science were as solid as you suggest, Steyn’s and Rand’s words would be no more important than the cranks who malign Einstein and Relativity even to this day. They would have no traction at all.

            If they have traction, then it is because the science is not solid. In a very real sense, the lawsuit is self-refuting.

          2. If the science were as solid as you suggest

            The lawsuit isn’t about whether Mann’s scientific work is correct, it’s about whether he committed fraud.

            If they have traction, then it is because the science is not solid.

            Saying that someone committed fraud is defamatory whether their work is solid or not. There’s a huge difference between being wrong and being dishonest.

          3. “it’s about whether he committed fraud.”

            No, it is about whether anyone has the right to an opinion about whether he committed fraud or not.

            “Saying that someone committed fraud is defamatory whether their work is solid or not.”

            Defamation requires injury. If his science is solid, there is no injury from the opinions of a couple of outsiders.

            “There’s a huge difference between being wrong and being dishonest.”

            They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

          4. No, it is about whether anyone has the right to an opinion about whether he committed fraud or not.

            Defamation requires injury. If his science is solid, there is no injury from the opinions of a couple of outsiders.

            You just made the argument that Defamation is impossible – anywhere, anytime.

          5. “You just made the argument that Defamation is impossible – anywhere, anytime.”

            For a public figure, that is very nearly true. This is a well known feature of the American (US) legal system, and its dedication to the First Amendment of its Constitution.

          6. Mann has already stipulated that he is a public figure in his own filings. In order to win, he has to prove that I wrote what I did “with malice.” That means with “reckless disregard for the truth.” In other words, it means that I wrote it knowing that it was false, or that I was indifferent to its truthfulness. As the judge said, if it gets to trial, the jury will decide that.

          7. It is very rare to win such suits, even against tabloids. The exceptions are generally when companies spread false rumors about a competitor’s product, or an angry employer lies about a former employee who is seeking a reference.

            Contrary to what you claim, Mann hasn’t been seriously investigated by anyone. He wasn’t cleared of wrongdoing in the UEA investigation, even though he had the second highest number of questionable e-mails, because he’s not a UK citizen and thus wasn’t a subject of the investigation. They no more exonorated him than they did Mark Steyn, who also wasn’t looked at. Mann wasn’t exonorated by Penn State on three of the four charges because they didn’t even bother to look into them. Thus The Atlantic calling it a whitewash.

            And yet Mann continues to dish out abuse to anyone who dares question anything he’s done. Just today Mann called Dr Patrick Moore, cofounder of Greenpeace, “a garden variety troll.”

          8. “The lawsuit isn’t about whether Mann’s scientific work is correct, it’s about whether he committed fraud.”

            No, the lawsuit is about the first amendment and defamation. Mann brought the suit to get retribution for being offended not to exonerate his scientific work.

    2. “Opinions and rhetorical hyperbole are protected speech under the First Amendment. Arguably, several of defendants’ statements fall into these protected categories.”

      Looks like the judge thinks the statement can be interpreted in several different ways.

      1. The Judge was pretty clear about which parts of the defendants’ statements he thought were opinions and rhetorical hyperbole, and which he thought were arguably defamatory.

        1. The context is clearly rhetorical hyperbole. I don’t think you can separate the disagreeable part and claim that it wasn’t rhetorical hyperbole while the rest of it was. It is like reading a satire and finding a sentence in the middle you don’t like and claiming that while the entire piece is satire, that one sentence in the middle wasn’t.

    3. Uhm:
      “Upsidedown Tijander” ? A reasonable layman might suppose that taking a young and innocent data set and hanging it from its heels to make it testify favoring a conclusion it had previously opposed does, rhetorically, equate to “torture”. (At least insofar as using a red felt tip marker to simulate menstrual blood, or playing Barney-the-purple-dinosaur theme songs ALSO rhetorically constitute “torture”. What does it mean to “torture” — data? Is there any way for a layman to understand the claim that a researcher “tortured” a non-living collection of records as anything OTHER than a metaphor? Either it’s protected artistic speech, or it’s a protected truth-claim of fact: Mann took another researcher’s data and used it in an orientation diametrically opposed to the original interpretation.

      1. You’re not even on the right planet.

        Mann took another researcher’s data and used it in an orientation diametrically opposed to the original interpretation.

        This is a story I can’t wait to hear, do give details.

        1. How can you possibly not of heard of the Tijander fiasco? Oh, right. You read Skeptical Science, where actual climate information is as rare as books by von Mises or Hayek in Beijing.

        2. You’re not aware of the “Upsidedown Tijander” series dispute? How can you opine so insistently on a topic you know so little about? Here’s a clue: Google is your friend.

  7. “Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory”

    This suggest that courts are suppose safeguard the scientific method.
    What stupid idea.
    Have courts ever done this?
    Other than things like witch trials?
    The purpose of courts is judging based upon laws passed by politicians- which we
    can hope is based upon public will.
    That’s all courts do.
    Courts are not arbitrators of the Truth nor are they the supreme scientists.

        1. As an example I’d cite the recent case of a man who appeared in court to claim he wasn’t dead, seeking to get his death certificate rescinded. The judge ruled against him because legally he was still dead, even though the plaintiff argued a pretty good case that he wasn’t.

      2. In case Gerrib doesn’t take Wodun’s link seriously, here’s the Supreme Courts website:
        The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

        Finding fact is not the same thing as finding truth. There’s plenty of facts to be found that Gerrib is a complete idiot, but there’s always a chance that he might not be a complete idiot.

    2. What stupid idea.

      Think about what you’re claiming; that you think you’re understanding of the courts role is greater than that of the Judge.

      This suggest that courts are suppose safeguard the scientific method.

      To me it looks like the claim extends to no more than the courts having a role in enforcing the law, whether it’s in defamation law in the scientific arena or in any other arena, If someone defames a football player do you think that suddenly the courts are safeguarding the rules of football? How about a defamation of a hairdresser, do you think the courts, by ruling on the defamation, are safeguarding the standards of the hairdressing industry?

  8. Well, I know this’ll go down like a lead balloon with all those supporters of Rand in this court case (whose own money isn’t on the line), but it would be interesting to know if there was any possibility of Rand getting out of this business with some sort of retraction, apology, and contribution to (Mann’s) costs, as far as I know, Rand isn’t enormously wealthy, and the Plaintiff is I’m sure smart enough to work out that you can’t get blood from a stone.

    Just being pragmatic.

    I’d rather see Steyn than Rand take a beating, and he looks like the juicier target anyway.

    1. Mann can’t take any money from Rand or Mark Steyn because it might be tainted by big oil, whose corrupting influence even Mann can’t possibly resist. All of his research would be called into question and he would be dismissed as a shill for the fossil fuel industry, forever casting Penn State and the IPCC into disrepute. The whole lawsuit is a clever plot by Exxon and The Heartland Institute to accomplish that very goal.

    2. How about the following:

      I’m sowwy your widdle feewings were hurt. In recompense, I will send you a box of cookies and some milk to share with your playfriends before afternoon nap.

Comments are closed.