Sunday, January 26, 2014

Steyn doesn't understand the picture



It's from his blog post. He seems to think the hand covering his mouth belongs to Michael Mann, but it's actually his own lawyer's.

Didn't work though, so his legal analyst team appears to have had enough:

                          


They can quit him, it turns out, and the blog post is an indication why. Steyn (or maybe National Review) does manage to keep himself from repeating the f-word about Mann, so that's good. But then:
Up north, following a similar SLAPP suit from the Canadian Islamic Congress, my publisher Maclean's, who are far less ideologically simpatico to me than NR, nevertheless understood the stakes — and helped get a disgusting law with a 100 percent conviction rate first stayed by a hitherto jelly-spined jurist and ultimately repealed by the Parliament of Canada.
Having already dissed the judge he had before his current one, he then writes above that the Canadian judge who actually gave him a success is a "hitherto jelly-spined jurist." Current judge Weisberg now knows what thanks to expect even if he eventually rules in Steyn's favor, given that anything short of exactly what Steyn wants at any time constitutes "jelly-spinedness".

Steyn wonders why he's not supposed to talk about the judge, and fails to realize that not bad-mouthing your own judge in your own case where the issue is whether you defame people recklessly isn't the same as his made-up claim that people aren't supposed to criticize judges generally. He appears to have judgment issues.

And there's this paragraph:
I take the view that I'm entitled to say the same thing in Seattle as I would in Sydney or Stockholm, Sofia or Suva. But, were Dr. Mann to prevail, it would nevertheless be the case that his peculiarly thin skin and insecurities would enjoy greater protection under U.S. law than they do in Britain, Canada, Australia, and other jurisdictions. It would thus be a major setback for the First Amendment.
That's a ridiculous comparison of libel laws, btw, where public figures like Mann have much more trouble winning in the US than England. Mainly though I think there's finally an undertone of something less than confidence in the trial outcome. Maybe he's waking up.

142 comments:

Bernard J. said...

"Maybe he's waking up. "

I hope not - I'm waiting to see if he can make it all the way to China.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

He obviously doesn't understand why they are called "mouthpieces". Personally, I hope he never gets it.

David B. Benson said...

Bad case of narcolepsy.

Andy S said...

Steyn does not appreciate the difference between hate speech (Canada) and libel in the US. Maybe he should consult a lawyer. Oh wait.

Andy S

Russell Seitz said...

What would Steyn do if Islam's founder were a climate scientist ?

Don't wait up for a cartoon by Josh.

Anonymous said...

Why is Mann a public figure? Would it not be perverse if the only reason he is a public figure is because of the long running defamation campaign against him?

Brian said...

Anon - yes that would be perverse, but Mann gives interviews etc. If he were only public because of vilification, then the defendant probably wouldn't be allowed to assert that (something called "estoppel").

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Brian, *I* have given interviews. Well, questioned on local TV about something.

Does that make ME a public figure?

Many of Mann's appearances have been in connection with the claims against him. Is his Hobson's Choice to

a) let people defame him and do not defend himself publicly
or
b) become a "public personality", therefore of limited ability to defend himself against vitriolic and deliberately damaging libel

?

If so, how the HELL is there supposed to be "justice"?

The Right Wing Professor... said...

Well, given he's claimed to be a Nobel prizewinner, I think he has to live with being considered a public figure.

Anonymous said...

judges aren't royalty nor are they babies, they just need to do their job like everyone else.

rspung said...

mann has no chance of winning this case. since he has been classified legally as a public figure, he has to prove that stein , etc. KNEW what they said was false. however, there is no shortage of statistics experts and climate experts who can testify on the defendants' behalf. they can show their debunking of the hockey stick and the reality of the mwp, which means the defendants were exposed to a multitude of expert information educating them about mann's dishonesty and data manipulation. since any reasonable person would believe an overwhelming amount of expert opinion, all in agreement, the judge or jury will have to find that the defendants had ample cause to believe mann was a fake.

it is virtually impossible to win a libel trial as a public figure. and since it is obvious that the defendants believed what they were saying was true, mann has no hope.

Brian said...

Rspung - you don't know the law. Sorry.

rspung said...

yes I do. look it up if you don't believe me.

"Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

Anonymous said...

rspung, you will be hardpressed to find any statisticians or climate scientists who will claim MBH98/99 are a fraud, dishonest, or contained (improper) data manipulation. Not even McIntyre makes these claims.

Marco

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Well, given he's claimed to be a Nobel prizewinner, I think he has to live with being considered a public figure."

Well how many Nobel prize winners are there, and how many of them do you know?

No, you're post-dating your rationalisation here, dear. Is the choice "Accept this prize and become a public figure or reject it, and, um, become famous for one of the few who rejected their prize and therefore public..." of the Hobson variety?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"mann has no chance of winning this case. since he has been classified legally as a public figure, he has to prove that stein , etc. KNEW what they said was false"

Yup. If they didn't check then they knew that they were claiming things that they had no idea was true (i.e. a lie). If they did check, then their checking becomes public record and will demonstrate that they knew they were wrong. I.e. lying again.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"however, there is no shortage of statistics experts and climate experts who can testify on the defendants' behalf. they can show their debunking of the hockey stick and the reality of the mwp"

Actually, you'll find a complete and utter lack of any such statistician willing to get up in court, swearing an oath that can bind them to contempt of court and perjury, and claim that the hockey stick is fake.

There's a massive lack of any statistician able to debunk the hockey stick.

But there are plenty of statisticians who will claim on a blog with no need to prove their claims that they have debunked the hockey stick.

All that they lack is the ability to prove their case, hence their lack of appearance at courts.

rspung said...

"Actually, you'll find a complete and utter lack of any such statistician willing to get up in court, swearing an oath that can bind them to contempt of court and perjury, and claim that the hockey stick is fake."

wrong. over a dozen of them have already said it in writing, publicly. all the defense has to do is call them as witnesses, read back their words and ask them to confirm it.

and that includes wegman, whose congressional report findings stated that mann did not use the proper statistical analysis methods.

rspung said...

as I said, the defendants don't have to prove fraud or data manipulation. all they have to do is prove they BELIEVED there was fraud and data manipulation.

and after they do that, mann cannot counter with any evidence that they believed otherwise, because there isn't any.

in order for mann to win, he has to PROVE that the defendants KNEW they were lying. this is impossible. mann cannot win this case.

the court has already established that he is a public figure and the actual malice statute applies.

Kevin O'Neill said...

rspung - do you have a link to any reputable statistician or scientist that has claimed Mann committed fraud?

BTW, I'm sure Mann's lawyers would *love* to see Wegman in court - LOL.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"wrong. over a dozen of them have already said it in writing, publicly."

Not one have proven their claims, only their claim to have done so. NOT ONE has done so in court sworn in testimony.

Sorry, your "wrong" is not supported by your evidence supplied.

Please try again.

rspung said...

McIntyre, mckitrick and wegman are three. in addition, there are over a dozen climatologists. anyone who wrote a paper confirming the existence of the mwp (and there have been two hundred papers that have done so) will be a good expert witness.

you need to understand that it doesn't matter what you think about the expert witnesses. it only matters what the defendants thought about them. if they had credentials and they testify mann played with the numbers or ignored the mwp, that's enough.

it all boils down to the defendant's state of mind. the only way mann can win is if he finds an email or an eyewitness that can confirm a defendant said "I know mann is not a fraud but i'm going to publish it anyway".

he will never be able to come up with that.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"as I said, the defendants don't have to prove fraud or data manipulation. all they have to do is prove they BELIEVED there was fraud and data manipulation."

And to do that they'd have to prove their statement true in fact.

You can't just close your eyes and "BELIEVE!!!!" and claim that you believe there was fraud and data manipulation.

Even nutters say they have evidence for the alien invasion or how the stonecutters made Steve Guttenberg a star. They just don't claim "I BELIEVE!".

So they have to show that there appears to be manipulation and data fraud AND that they tested for it.

A court isn't an evangelical "faith healing" congregation. "I BELIEVE!" isn't sufficient to show you believe what you claim.

You have to show reason why you believe that.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"McIntyre, mckitrick and wegman are three."

All three were debunked before Steyn made his claim.

Note too that none of these claimed so and proved so in court.

Note lastly you did not show any link for your claim that Mann committed fraud (a claim separate from "disproved the hockey stick").

Please try again.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"it all boils down to the defendant's state of mind"

Indeed. What you miss deliberately, is that this isn't a junior school debating forum but a court of law where rules of evidence are required for any statement.

Lacking any evidence for the defendant's state of mind to have any reason to believe their statements true, their defence fails.

rspung said...

I don't have to "try again". I stated the law. if you don't want to believe me, it's your problem, not mine. the defendants will introduce plenty of expert witnesses that will testify they wrote about mann's hockey stick and his data manipulation. then the defendants will testify they read the articles and believed them.

your claim that McIntyre was debunked is meaningless, as is your claim that he never testified in court. I haven't seen any evidence that he was debunked, and more importantly, the defendants will testify they haven't seen any either.

like I said, mann HAS to prove the defendants KNEW they were lying. he has a hopeless task.

your comments don't change the circumstances and they don't change the law.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"I don't have to "try again"."

Indeed not. However, if you wish to find an argument that actually has any legs, you will need to try again to find one since the ones you've managed so far have been quadraplegic.

But you don't have to try again. You can stop here and have failed, no probs.

"your claim that McIntyre was debunked is meaningless"

Nope, the paper by M&M was soundly refuted. Did you know, for example, that their PCA was done on THREE DATA POINTS? No? There's a fact for you to investigate and you don't even have to go to any "tainted sources", all you need are M&M's source and data.

"like I said, mann HAS to prove the defendants KNEW they were lying"

You said, it. This doesn't make it so.

"libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for “general damages,” and not just specific losses."

per se doesn't require the accuser to prove malice.


And according to the judge presiding, the jury is likely to find the lcaim:

“was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not….”

Reckless disregard.

They have to have EVIDENCE to support their belief.

If Steyn continues with your "argument", he's lost before he starts: "I just believe it to be true, for no reason at all, because I never looked at or tested the data I claimed to know about" is a non starter.

Ignorance is no basis for belief.

rspung said...

you obviously don't know anything about the law. google nyt vs Sullivan, 1964.

the us supreme court established a standard for public figures. they have to prove actual malice. actual malice "requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

the judge stated this in the order he signed dismissing the slap motion. he said "if made with actual malice, they are actionable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/01/MannvNR-1-22.pdf

you need to stop throwing around insults and take a few minutes to educate yourself. none of the "points" you have made mean anything in this case.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

You obviously don't know anything about the law. Google libel.

Someone doesn't get to CLAIM they BELIEVE a fact is true. They have to show that they have done something that would lead "the reasonable man" to believe the same.

If your claim is that you've never attempted to detect any fraud in the data, then you have no basis for your belief and your statements are in wilful disregard for the truth, and the claims made are libel per se, and hence do not require proof of malice to gain general damages.

Note that there is no requirement to prove malice for libel to be successful. And if successful you can claim for special damages, if you can prove such occurred.

A bit like statutory damages for copyright infringement: you do not have to prove that there was profit if you can prove copyright infringement, but if you want more than the statutory damages, then you must prove it.

But as I've said: you obviously know nothing about the law.

rspung said...

lol, you have issues. I know what libel is, and I have followed several libel trials in the past.

the simple fact is there is a different standard for public figures. public figures must prove actual malice. this was decided by the supreme court in 1964. if you knew anything about the law, you would know that.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Yes, the issue is that you're talking bollocks.

What sort of problem is that? Is refuting arrant nonsense a problem that must be avoided? When was it made wrong to correct the nonsense of buffoons?

Anonymous said...

This is the weird thing about denier morons and their accusations against anyone who dares gainsay their assertions: their complaints are ***completely unrelated to anything evidenced***.

"You have issues!".

What? Where is this either shown as evidenced, shown as needing correction, or shown not to exist on the part of the one making the complaint, by any stretch of the meaning of "issue" that could possibly apply to the one against whom the accusation is made?

If I were to claim you have issues, rspung, what could you say against the charge?

Nothing.

For the same reason: the complaint is so undefined and nebulous it could mean or be evidenced by anything, but 99% of the effort in rebutting or refuting the complaint would be done in trying to work out what the HELL the complaint actually IS. And that is discounting the option of the accuser to claim "That isn't what I meant, don't be silly".

rspung said...

regardless of what you may believe, there is an actual malice standard for public figures. I gave you proof of it, and your refusal to look at the proof speaks volumes about your irrational state of mind.

have fun in your fantasy world. in the real world, mann won't be able to show actual malice and he will lose the case.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

In the real world I await the evidence that the case has been lost. That requires an actual verdict or judgement from the judge.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"regardless of what you may believe"

Ah. Rather odd where someone claims that someone's beliefs are insufficient when it goes against THEIR beliefs, yet gives Steyn a pass on belief being sufficient.

This is not the case.

Neither is it the case that your proofs pertain in this case.

I could point you to a case of aiding and abeting and this would be just as true and evidential as your proofs given.

And just as irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"in the real world, mann won't be able to show actual malice and he will lose the case."

In the real world, Mann doesn't have to show absolute proof of malice. The statements are vicious enough to have malice presumed.

Steyn has to show that there is a reason for his belief that the facts he claimed were true.

rspung said...

"In 1964, the Court changed the direction of libel law dramatically with its decision in new york times v. sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964). For the first time, the Court placed some libelous speech under the protection of the First Amendment. The plaintiff, a police official, had claimed that false allegations about him were published in the New York Times, and he sued the newspaper for libel. The Court balanced the plaintiff's interest in preserving his reputation against the public's interest in freedom of expression in the area of political debate. The Court wrote that "libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." Therefore, in order to protect the free flow of ideas in the political arena, the law requires that a public official who alleges libel must prove actual malice in order to recover damages. The First Amendment protects open and robust debate on public issues even when such debate includes "vehement, caustic, unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."

Since Sullivan, a public official or other person who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that a libelous statement "was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not" (Sullivan). The actual-malice standard does not require any ill will on the part of the defendant. Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false. Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication" (see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262 [1968])."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here.

And that case is not relevant.

Is there something in that statement that eludes your visual cortex?

rspung said...

lol, you are in complete denial. that case applies to every libel case in the u.s.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"The plaintiff, a police official"

Which Mann is not. Mann was not acting as an official of the university either.

"had claimed that false allegations about him were published in the New York Times, and he sued the newspaper for libel"

This, however, is libel per se.

The difference being the allegations made.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"lol, you are in complete denial."

About what?

I've never denied that there was such a case nor that it made claims about public personages and libel.

So what am I denying?

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

Quoting the Wiki on the subject

"The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice. In this context, the phrase refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, rather than its ordinary meaning of malicious intent."

***reckless lack of investigation***

"I just BELIEVE that it was fraud" is a priori reckless lack of investigation.

rspung said...

hahahahahahahaha

you are grasping at straws. it doesn't matter whether someone is a policeman! hahahahahahahahaha

mann is suing for both libel and libel per se, and the standard of proof is the same for both of them.

the judge in this case referenced the language created by the Sullivan case in the order he just released.

"If made with actual malice, they are actionable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/01/MannvNR-1-22.pdf

you are hopelessly in over your head. this is starting to get funny.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here
"you are grasping at straws."

Ah. Projection. Rubber/glue.

Nope. The police were "defamed" by the accusation of king being arrested more times than was factually true. The police officer wasn't named, but was defamed AS A POLICE OFFICIAL. I.e. it was his post, not his person, that was defamed.

And the defamation was "He was arrested four times, not seven as you claimed!". Rather different from allegations of criminal misconduct from Steyn.

I'm afraid it's patently obvious you are the one grasping at any feather of comfort and assistance to your denial of the facts of the matter here.

"If made with actual malice, they are actionable."


Indeed, and by the meaning of malice in terms of law, not common usage.

Which includes "reckless lack of investigation".

It's the law, kid.

It just isn't in your favour, so you pretend it is otherwise.

John Mashey said...

Fro Anon-101a Kevin O, etc:
It may be practice, but a waste of time to argue with pseudoskeptics ridden forcefully by Morton's Demon.

As Darth might say, "The force is strong with this one."

Kevin O'Neill said...

rspung - Every investigative body that has looked at the issue has reached the same conclusion -- three in the U.K., two by Penn State, The National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation, the EPA, and the NOAA inspector general — all unanimously found the allegations against Mann, or Jones, or climate scientists and their research conclusions to be wholly unsubstantiated. What logic do you believe will lead a court to decide otherwise?

I believe most - if not all - of these investigations were completed and the results released before Steyn/Simpels articles were published. In a court of law, why do you believe the court not accept this as evidence of malice? Do you believe Steyn and Simpels will claim they were unaware of all these investigations? I don't think that pig will fly. If true, they would have apologized and issued prompt retractions.

No, they simply don't *want* to believe the investigation results - not that they were unaware of them. But to claim fraud when there is no evidence of fraud is what libel/slander is all about. I'd be the last person to put any faith in the US judicial system, but on its face Steyn and Simpels obviously acted with malice.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

So, rspung, if I made an unfovorable conspiracy of you to a child molester, you would not consider that to be malicious?

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if Michael Mann can prove Steyn acted with Malice.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Gretch here

You are right. It should prove interesting. Steyn, as the defendant, does not have to show or prove anything. In fact he can remain silent during the entire proceeding. Mann, as the plaintiff, will have to show or prove his case that Steyn acted with Malice. Which is going to be hard. Steyn might just welcome the trial as an opportunity to launch into discovery, knowing that Mann has the difficulty of having to prove his case while Steyn doesn't.

Conrad Dunkerson said...

LOL! McIntyre, McKitrick, and Wegman. I don't think we can dare hope that these clowns would be called (and agree) to testify. Taking down this group of fake 'journalists' is awesome enough, but getting to watch their nonsense 'sources' get taken apart on the stand... it would be a death knell to the climate denial industry.

Frankly, I expect the defendants to offer to settle before the case gets to discovery.

dhogaza said...

"Steyn might just welcome the trial as an opportunity to launch into discovery"

Which is why the he's tried so hard to get the suit dismissed as a SLAPP suit. Because, you know, he's so eager to launch into discovery …

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Gretch here

I think it's more likely that Mann will drop the suit before it reaches the discovery phase. He could drop it and claim victory and thius avoid revealing all the backup to his hockey stick which he seems determined to not release. Of course this is merely my prediction. Mann supporters have their own predictions. We'll just have to wait and see which side is proven right.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

avoid revealing all the backup to his hockey stick which he seems determined to not release.

Can you enlighten me up what backup he needs to his data graph, since it's all in the public domain, and has already been disassembled and reassembled in the public domain extensively? Seriously, any insight would be appreciated. Thanks again.

Conrad Dunkerson said...

Yes, Mann is a public figure. Yes, that makes it very difficult to prove defamation. Yes, 'malice' is nearly impossible to prove.

That said... Mann has a slam dunk case.

Proving malice requires Mann to show that the defendants acted with "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth". The only way to prove KNOWING disregard for the truth is if discovery turns up some example of them saying that they knew they were lying. However, RECKLESS DISREGARD is another matter.

Saying 'I believed the things I was saying' is NOT an absolute defense against defamation. If the judge rules that the belief required reckless disregard for the truth then you are still hosed... and the belief that Mann committed fraud after eight investigations had cleared him UNQUESTIONABLY required reckless disregard for the truth.

Another example: Steyn wrote THIS WEEK that the 'hockey stick model failed to show the lack of warming over the past 15 years' (paraphrased). The hockey stick is not a model. It is a reconstruction of PAST temperatures. It doesn't show future temperatures AT ALL. Ergo, despite having written about it in DOZENS of articles... Steyn still doesn't have the first clue about what the hockey stick graph IS. That's blatant 'reckless disregard'.

Ignorance is NOT a defense if you could easily have remedied that ignorance and chose not to. That is why the defendants have little hope of winning.

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon Gretch - I think you know not what the legalese definition of 'malice' is:

"In its legal application, the term malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse. It does not necessarily imply personal hatred or ill feelings, but rather, it focuses on the mental state that is in reckless disregard of the law in general and of the legal rights of others. An example of a malicious act would be committing the tort of slander by labeling a nondrinker an alcoholic in front of his or her employees."

Did Steyn and Simpels know that Mann had been cleared of any wrongdoing by numerous investigations? Their reckless disregard for the facts is what constitutes malice.

Jim Eager said...

"In fact he [Steyn] can remain silent during the entire proceeding."

He can, but so far he's demonstrated that is highly unlikely to happen.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Gretch here

It'll still be interesting to see if Mann drops the suit before it reaches discovery. I tend to think he will, others here obviously tend to think he won't. Only time will tell.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Gretch here

in reply to Jim Eagar: I tend to agree with you on that point.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

It'll still be interesting to see if Mann drops the suit before it reaches discovery. I tend to think he will

What, pray tell, knowing that his work has already extensively examined by the scientific and blog community, do you think he has to hide or would not want to be revealed? Some kind of fraud or scientific conspiracy perhaps?

I myself am more interested in witnessing the denialati meltdown that might occur from this trial.

dhogaza said...

"It'll still be interesting to see if Mann drops the suit before it reaches discovery. I tend to think he will, others here obviously tend to think he won't. Only time will tell."

It would be totally stupid to file a suit with the intention of dropping it before discovery. It's even more stupid to suggest he'd do so. Obviously he was prepared for discovery before filing.

On the other hand, Steyn seems to be trying to run away from the suit rather, including discovery, but as defendent he can't …

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Gretch here

in reply to dhogaza

You stated: "It would be totally stupid to file a suit with the intention of dropping it before discovery..."

On this point we're just going to have to totally disagree.

dhogaza said...

it would totally discredit the legal team in the eyes of the court, and given the visibility of this case, in much of the legal world.

If the legal team had any hint whatsoever that Mann would drop the suit (as opposed to make a reasonable and satisfactory settlement) rather than be deposed, they'd drop him as quickly as Steyn's legal team dropped him …

And that's not happened. And there is no sign it is going to happen.

Anonymous said...

Saying that someone tortured data is not defamation. Robert Millikan of oil drop fame tortured the data - he omitted recording readings that he thought were too extreme. And he really did get a Nobel Prize.

So did the scientists who followed him. Scientists torture/manipulate their data all the time - they selectively present results, omit reporting negative results, and select the analysis procedure that favors their preferred results.

This is not the "scientific fraud" of inventing data - that's the type that actually gets scientists in trouble. Steyn never used the qualifier "scientific".

The judge is wrong, wrong, wrong, in thinking that torturing data is a "fact" in the same way that inventing data or not is a fact that can be proved/disproved in court.

There is no such thing as the right and true best statistical test - every test is a judgement call. Torturing the data is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think avoiding type I error is more important than avoiding type II error? What if I think the opposite? And there are many more dimensions of judgement - what if you think I am wrong to assume normally distributed errors? What if I retort that it's the best guess we can make?

Mann's defenders contradict them selves. Why talk about the "consensus" if not because there is an element of judgement in the choice of analysis technique. So consensus increases our confidence in our hypothesis which is the best we can do since mathematical proofs are the only place you can prove stuff for certain.

Steyn also contradicts himself. If torturing data is an opinion then Mann's research can never be "proven" false, so long as he did not invent data. And though you can choose to go against thye consensus, the consensus is a valid argument for your side.

Mann's suit is a classic SLAPP if ever there was one and it should have just been dismissed on the spot, but I guess it's on now.

Russell Seitz said...

Anybody laying odds on Steyn daring to visit Britain long enough for a solicitor to draft and serve a libel writ there?

Phillip said...

Several points that may be obvious to all, but which I haven't seen mentioned:

1. This is a civil suit so Mann is not required to prove his case "beyond a reasonable doubt", he only has to show that "the preponderance of evidence" supports his claim. That's a much lower bar to have to clear.

2. The discovery phase will not be an open-ended fishing expedition - both sides have to specify what items they want their opponents to turn over. So Steyn can't simply say "We want to see all the emails you've sent or received relating to your paleoclimate work". He'll have to specify who the emails are to or from, and the period of time covered - and even then Mann's team can object to the items sought as not being relevant to the suit. There is a huge pool of colleagues Mann interacts with, and a dacades long timeframe involved, so the odds of the defendants finding something juicy is vanishingly small - even assuming there is anything to find. Remember, multiple independent investigations of Mann's work didn't turn up anything damning.

Mann's team, on the other hand, has the much simpler task of asking for, and looking through, the communications between the four defendants from the period leading up to the the columns were written to the present - a much smaller haystack to sift through. Sure, they will seek notes, drafts, and emails to outsiders such as McIntyre, but I'd be surprised if they come up empty-handed.

Bernard J. said...

"Mann's suit is a classic SLAPP if ever there was one and it should have just been dismissed on the spot..."

Are you a lawyer?

Because there some judges getting around who disagree.

Let's see...

Anonymous internet opinion - judges...

Anonymous internet opinion - judges...

Sorry, but I'm going with the judges.

EliRabett said...

As anyone who has ever done the oil drop experiment can tell you it demands a lot of practice before you can rely on the result and you quickly learn when a run sucks.

What Millikan did, and how he did it is a bit of a tale, but torture was not involved.

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/ethics/millikan.htm

for starters.

Anonymous said...

Mann's libel suit will end the same way that David Irving's defamation suit in the UK ended -- faceplant down in the mud. And like Irving, Mann's reputation will be in tatters forever after.

Anonymous said...

Ah, anonymous still thinks that like in Irving's case, the defendants can find evidence that Mann indeed did what they claimed he did.

Fat chance, anonymous!

Brian said...

It was interesting that rspung kept quoting the law that expressly said you don't have to know what you're saying is false and then went on to say it proves that you have to expressly know what you're saying is false.

Anyway, a slightly different question is whether you can sincerely believe some (false) thing that you're saying is true and still act in reckless disregard of the truth. I'm not a defamation lawyer, but I think the answer is yes, sometimes. I suspect in this particular case, the evidence will show the Ds literally had the truth under their noses in the exonerations that they cite to and then deny. Even if they still believed their falsehoods, it could only be because they put no effort into understanding the information that they discuss at length, and that constitutes reckless disregard for the truth.

A judge reaching that decision could also suspect that the Ds actually knew on some level that what they said was false but kept saying it. The judge doesn't need to make that conclusion while suspecting it, because reckless disregard standard gets you to the same outcome.

rspung said...

I never said that. I said actual malice requires you to know what you're saying is false. and that's exactly what the law says.

and like I said, the defendants will introduce tons of expert witnesses that will testify mann manipulated the data to obtain a fraudulent graph.

they don't have to believe "investigations" that "cleared" mann if the investigations are shown to be whitewashes by institutions who have a financial interest in clearing mann.

especially since an "investigation" into jerry Sandusky "cleared" him right before he confessed to decades worth of horrific crimes.

and especially since they can introduce evidence of an investigation (wegman) that reached an opposite conclusion from the other investigations. it kind of renders them moot.

dhogaza said...

Ah, yes, Wegman, found guilty of plagiarism by the journal of "Computational Statistics and Data Analysis ", with retraction of the article in question. And who, in his congressional testimony, simply parroted McIntyre.

Just the kind of guy you want to introduce to the court ...

Thomas Lee Elifrtz said...

and like I said, the defendants will introduce tons of expert witnesses that will testify mann manipulated the data to obtain a fraudulent graph.

But but but ... Wegman!

This guy is a poster boy for Dunning Kruger. He's drunk the WUWT kookaide. He ate the cracker.

Brian said...

Rspung said what I said he said, and then after saying he didn't say what he said, he said it again.

And it's still wrong.

tonylearns said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tonylearns said...

wow, reading all of that was fun.
but rspung has hit the nail on the head. Steyn is going to show that ALL the investigations of MAnn and the hockey stick are fraudulent whitewashes.
the entire global warming hoax will come down like the house of cards it is, as statistician after statistician gets on the stand and shows that Mann's research was FRAUDULENT and that all the other research which comes up with the same basic results are likely fraudulent because they are ALL IN IT FOR THE MONEY.
they judge is just going to have to clear Steyn et al and write a decision that completely condemns the hoax of global warming
why isn't the entire denialosphere focusing in on this waiting for their big triumph? Who cares about Curry and the senate and the arctic and the cold on the east coast. This is the revolution that is finally going to restore science back to it's path of truth.

Personally I think the malice part is the easiest to show. I don't think comparing Mann to Sandusky is going to be looked at as a compliment. though Steyn did give that one a little qualification.

I also think it doesn't look good in this respect that Mann asked for a change that would make it non libelous and they stuck their thumbs in their ears and went "na na na na na na"

Anonymous said...

I don't think he can debunk Mann, but I don't think he needs to either. He just needs to say that he "tortured" the data. As in he manipulated the method or the choice of data to favor his position. Like public policy advocates do all the time.

Malice is meaningless. He's a political writer who is sarcastic about lots of things and it is just his style.

Brian said...

Here's a hypothetical: discovery shows a difference between Steyn and the rest of the Ds. All Ds start off with a sincere belief that Mann committed some type of fraud, but then reviewed the exonerations differently.

Maybe Steyn would be shown to have actually tried to understabd the exonerations and failed. Maybe the material was too complex and unfamiliar to him. He concludes it must be just jargon, otherwise it would have persuaded him, and continues to think Mann a fraud.

The other Ds don't try to understand the exonerations. They reason "Mann's a fraud, this is just a bunch of whitewashing by his colleagues, and I'm just going to read enough of them so I can criticize them as being wrong and then go on to snarking".

Under this hypotethical, both Steyn and the other Ds could have a sincere belief that what they said was true, but Steyn might get away with it (he'd be negligent but not necessarily reckless) while the others would be found liable for their recklessness.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

That won't work for Steyn. Simberg made the tortured data reference.

Anonymous said...

Discovery will be interesting. Mann has been notorious about his refusal to release his research data. That refusal has been a key part of the claims of fraud. You know Steyn, et al, are going to demand every piece of data, every email, every computer program, every piece of correspondence. They will demand everything that Mann has refused to release for years. And they will get it or Mann will have to drop his case.

As for Mann's claims of being a Nobel laureate, he will be mocked mercilessly. He will have to admit under oath that he falsely claimed to be a Nobel laureate. He will be humiliated in court particularly since he had sworn in an affidavit that he was. Then the Nobel Committee said he wasn't and never had been.

This is going to be fun.

rspung said...

brian, what are talking about? quote the part of the law that says actual malice means you don't have to know what you are saying is false.

it doesn't exist.

Kevin O'Neill said...

anon - latest troll version

"Mann has been notorious about his refusal to release his research data."

Yes, so notorious the data has been in the public domain and online for years... duh.

Kevin O'Neill said...

rspung - "...quote the part of the law that says actual malice means you don't have to know what you are saying is false.

it doesn't exist."


Yes, it does

In the District, a private figure plaintiff bringing a defamation lawsuit must prove that the defendant was at least negligent with respect to the truth or falsity of the allegedly defamatory statements. Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity.

You can use the Google - it's not that hard.

rspung said...

mann is a public figure. the court has already established this. therefore, the actual malice standard applies. that goes without saying.

the plaintiff must prove the defendants knew what they said was false.

and "the truth" does not equal the finding of a commission. the truth equals the truth.

if the commission did not adequately audit mann's work (which can easily be shown), then the commission's findings will not be accepted as "the truth".

kinda like how the commission's findings on jerry Sandusky's "innocence" weren't accepted as the truth.

John Mashey said...

Kevin O;
A relevant item is Mann response to Joe Barton & Ed Whitfield, July 15, 2005.

Their letters to {Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Pachauri, Bement} was the one that CEI's Myron Ebell sent to his buddy William Perhach (Bush White House, helper for the Phil Cooney who diddled Jim Hansen's reports, was exposed in NYTimes), about 90 minutes after the file was created, and probably before the recipients got them. It was certainly before Ray Bradley did.

They know how to do it: write intimidating letters, with thinktank operatives prepared.

Thank goodness for Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY).

This hidden data stuff was emitted from McIntyre, who:
a)Used a 100:1 cherry-pick in his R code, atop unreal time-series persistence parameters and other problems to generate misleading graphs. I've checked the R code.

If someone wants to claim that code proved MBH99 wrong, I hope they've examined the R code, can read it, and explain why, and how this could be an honest error.
Merely chanting "decentered-PCA" is unconvincing.

b) Falsified the origin of IPCC(1990) Fig.&.1(c), the ~Lamb(1965) sketch into 1995 this key post, "coincidentally" making the absurd chronology of Deming's dog astrology story to be slightly less absurd. Of course, the image wasn't actually from 1990 either, but happened to be identical to John Daly's. See Sou's nice blink chart and my comments there.

So why, exactly, would one give credibility to McIntyre's claims?
One does wonder how much US tax money and researcher time he has managed to waste.

rspung said...

keith Briffa just published a paper that proves mann's hockey stick is fiction. his chronology of tree ring data clearly shows mwp period temperatures were equal to or greater than today's temps. the smoking gun is the third graph (labeled "c") in the image below from his paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/melvin_etal_fig5.jpg

more info about the paper is available here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

so what happens when the defendants call keith Briffa as an expert witness to testify that mann misused his tree ring data?

Kevin O'Neill said...

rsprung - is reading the difficulty or comprehending?

I'll make this easy - I'll bold the relevant part for you.

Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity.

You see, the word 'or' ?

1) Knowing the statements were false,
OR
2) recklessly disregarding their falsity.

Not just 1, not 1 AND 2, but 1 OR 2.

You can persist in stating false information, but you're only fooling yourself. But doing an admirable job of living up to the stereotype.

Kevin O'Neill said...

rspung - *just* published a paper? It was published over a year ago. Did you *read* the article you linked to? The paper (and the accompanying graphs) deals with one location in northern Sweden.

As joeldshore pointed out in the comments:

"Ah…Isn’t this just a temperature reconstruction from one area,,,Northern Sweden? I don’t necessarily see any contradiction whatsoever with the work of Mann et al., which showed that although many individual regions experienced similar warmth to modern warmth sometime in some broadly-defined “Medieval Warm Period”, the warmest times were asynchronous in different regions and, hence, when you looked globally the warmth was not as great as the late 20th century warmth which was not asynchronous.

It helps to understand carefully what someone’s work actually said before jumping to the conclusion that a new piece of work contradicts it!
"

athsple grew

Anonymous said...

I think Briffa, when asked to testify, will point out that the hockeystick does not contain any of his data, so claiming that Mann misused his (as in "Briffa's") tree ring data would be untrue.

Marco

rspung said...

kevin, you are way too arrogant and assuming. what do you think the legal definition of "reckless disregard" is?

let me tell you (because I already researched it before I discussed it here, unlike you):

"Since Sullivan, a public official or other person who has voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye must prove that a libelous statement "was made with 'actual malice'—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not" (Sullivan). The actual-malice standard does not require any ill will on the part of the defendant. Rather, it merely requires the defendant to be aware that the statement is false or very likely false. Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication" (see St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 88 S. Ct. 1323, 20 L. Ed. 2d 262 [1968])."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander

let me repeat the pertinent part:

"Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication""

this is a legal standard, created by the u.s. supreme court. it should leave no doubt that the plaintiff MUST prove the defendants either DIDN'T KNOW or HAD SERIOUS DOUBTS about the truth of what they said.

the defendants can easily show that they had no doubts whatsoever, based on dozens of articles written and published by many experts in the field of statistics, mathematics and climatology. it doesn't matter what you or any other mann defender thinks about the experts or articles in question. the only thing that matters is (1) they are recognized experts and (2) the defendants formed their opinions of mann based on what they wrote.

in addition, the defendants can easily produce evidence that renders these prized "investigations" (that mann defenders are pointing to) were ridiculously flawed, biased, insufficient and undependable.

for crying out loud, the same guys who cleared mann also cleared Sandusky, right before he confessed to decades worth of horrific crimes! how much more evidence does any reasonable person need to conclude the "investigations" were absolute crap???

mann's case is unwinnable.

rspung said...

marco, there is no question that mann used briffa's data.

Anonymous said...

rspung, there is indeed no question that Mann used data from Briffa. He just didn't use the data you referred to, simply because you cannot use data from 2012 in a paper from 1998.

But it gets better: that paper points out a potential issue with data from Briffa himself. So, Mann did not misuse the tree ring data from Briffa, but there may have been some issues because Briffa "misused" his own data. That "misuse" being using a procedure later found to have some flaws. You cannot claim "misuse of data" by someone for using data of someone else that the latter person much later finds to have some potential issues.

Marco

Anonymous said...

Another little inconvenient tidbit of information for rspung is that the people who 'cleared' Sandusky were not the same people who were part of the investigation committee of Mike Mann. To add injury to insult for rspung, the NSF OIG also fully cleared Mann after doing its own investigation. Perhaps rspung will now spend some time googling whether he somehow can link the NSF OIG to Sandusky?

Marco

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Reckless disregard is present if the plaintiff can show that the defendant had "serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication""

And never having even looked at the data is a priori proof of that doubt. I.e. they KNEW they were making it up.

Now, lets look at your favourite figment:

The case you have been told is sovereign against any success against Steyn.

1) The officer wasn't named.
2) The claim was entirely different. I.e. one is an error 4 instead of 7 times, but the event still happened, merely not as often as claimed. Vs One is either entirely false or entirely true, removing the bit now claimed to be "possibly false" means there was no claim at all.
3) Not even the judge believes your assertions about it. I.e. he claims that a reasonable jury would find malice, you claim that it is impossible to show malice.

And now you've moved on, having your ignorance of libel per se rubbed in your face many times, that reckless disregard means you're still in the clear...

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

" Anonymous said...

Saying that someone tortured data is not defamation. "

The judge disagrees with you.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:
"It'll still be interesting to see if Mann drops the suit before it reaches discovery. I tend to think he will,"

Almost 100% definitely not.

Why?

Previous morons have claimed *climate scientists* (the abstract, group) were frauds. That doesn't give any one climate scientist standing to sue in the USA unless proof of malice (common usage) can be produced, and that the scientist in question was knowingly implicated by the speaker in their statement.

However, Steyn et al have broken that get out and named Mann.

They first tried "We didn't say he was a paedo!", but that was refused, based on the claim NOT being that he was called a paedo.

Then they tried "We didn't say 'Fraud', we said 'Tortured the data', which are different words" (note that they won't allow that defence when called deniers, it always means holocaust denier, even though the word holocaust is completely missing). That claim too failed.

Now they're floating by paid stooge the idea that "I am completely ignorant and believe with no evidence the claim MIGHT be true, but have never looked to see if it was or was not".

This claim too is failing in the blogosphere. It's unlikely to work in court.

Possible, but about as possible as the data was manipulated a priori to get a pre-specified result. I.e. one-in-billions.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"Steyn is going to show that ALL the investigations of MAnn and the hockey stick are fraudulent whitewashes."

How? No evidence to support it has ever been found.

Moreover, IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER, all that matters is that STEYN didn't know it was true and had no evidence to say it was, and plenty of evidence to say it was false AND DISREGARDED IT ALL to make the claim.

EVEN IF Steyn's claims are correct, if Steyn DOESN'T HAVE that evidence, then he doesn't get to fish for it here, because he's not the accused, he's the defendant.

If Mann isn't on trial, he cannot be forced to testify against himself. If he WERE on trial, he cannot be forced to testify against himself, but he could be forced to give up required relevant evidence.

However, Mann isn't on trial.

Steyn is.

rspung said...

well, look who's back! in case you didn't notice, Anon-101a, your insane theories about nyt vs. Sullivan not applying in this case have been laughed at and dismissed by everyone commenting on this thread. you really don't have a clue when it comes to the law.

even the judge hearing this case disagreed with you when he wrote his latest order. I mentioned that before, but you were too busy baying at the moon and throwing temper tantrums to notice.

here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2014/01/MannvNR-1-22.pdf

from page 4:

"See Payne, 25 A.3d at 924; Guilford Transp. Ind., Inc. v. Wilner, 760 A.2d 580, 597 (D.C. 2000); Foretich v. CBS, Inc., 619 A.2d 48, 59 (D.C. 1993) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 297 (1964)); Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 40 (D.C. 1979)."

hahahahahahahaha

notice the judge quotes nyt vs. Sullivan as a precedent in his writings!

you are such an arrogant fool.

this facts are these:

mann must prove the defendants KNEW or HAD SERIOUS DOUBTS about the truth of what they said.

showing evidence that some committee performed some kind of useless, lazy, superficial "investigation" that didn't include examining mann's data, equations or computer code is POINTLESS.

mann has to prove the defendants read about the investigations and accepted them as the truth. since this is impossible, mann cannot win this case.

the defendants relied on dozens of expert sources published publicly that analyzed and criticized mann's work. many of those sources labeled mann as dishonest, a data manipulator and other claims.

in fact, there was a youtube video making fun of him and singing "hide the decline", because phil jones accused him of using a "trick" to "hide the decline".

mann will never be able to prove actual malice. this case is unwinnable.

rspung said...

"If Mann isn't on trial, he cannot be forced to testify against himself."

hahahahahahahahaha

you idiot, this is a civil case. he is required to answer a subpoena under threat of contempt. the only way he can avoid testifying is by pleading the fifth (which only applies to CRIMINAL OFFENSES), and if he did that he would be laughed out of the courtroom.

god, your ignorance is stunning. are you an alien from another planet? you sure don't know much about this one!

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

""If Mann isn't on trial, he cannot be forced to testify against himself."

hahahahahahahahaha"

That insane laughter is because you haven't got anything better, is it dear?

"you idiot, this is a civil case."

Yes, you idiot, this is a civil case. What does that do about the rules against self incrimination? Nothing.

"he is required to answer a subpoena under threat of contempt."

He is not required to answer a nonexistent subpoena, however.

"the only way he can avoid testifying is by pleading the fifth"

And testifying only requires he answer cross examination questions. "Did you fake the data" is leading and therefore would be struck from the record. And it is irrelevant to the case at hand: if Steyn does not know fraud was committed, he committed libel.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

"in case you didn't notice, Anon-101a, your insane theories about nyt vs. Sullivan not applying in this case have been laughed at and dismissed by everyone commenting on this thread"

Yes, I do not realise that nonexistent claims were claimed here, retardo.

That is because they're not real.

PS Note that the judge considers your claims incorrect, even whilst you cite him as authority.

John Mashey said...

The Abrams tanks roll through the desert, while lost in the nearby dunes, rabid, toothless, nameless, Dunning-Kurger-affleicted Chihuahuas ridden by strong Morton's Demons howl their rage and fury at the tanks.

The tanks roll on.

Susan Anderson said...

come on guys, get a life! Nobody's budging, and free-form insults add to the stew of hatred, which is decidedly unuseful. Sure, lots of people confuse god with their egos, which is quite obvious to anyone not entirely wrapped up in themselves.

No amount of proof, no matter how valid, is going to budge the sand dykes of cultivated ignorance.

Thanks JM from the Morton's demon reference, though I note that in-talk is also not persuasive. For example, Dunning-Kruger dates back only to 1999, which might seem like ancient history to some, but loses the crowd in a haze of insider talk.

rspung said...

"What does that do about the rules against self incrimination?"

wow. there is no self-incrimination in a civil case. mann is required by law to take the stand and answer every question put to him by the defendants. the only way he can avoid answering a question is by pleading the fifth, and if he does the case will be over. no jury or judge will find for him then.

"I do not realize that nonexistent claims were claimed here"

so now you are lying and trying to say you never claimed nyt vs Sullivan was irrelevant or did not apply? awesome.

""Did you fake the data" is leading and therefore would be struck from the record."

Not a leading question. you are hopelessly wrong once again. the legal definition is:

"A query that suggests to the witness how it is to be answered or puts words into the mouth of the witness to be merely repeated in his or her response."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Leading+question

"Note that the judge considers your claims incorrect, even whilst you cite him as authority."

he doesn't consider anything I said to be incorrect. the judge says "Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff..."

see, this is a hypothetical situation, based on assuming everything the plaintiff said was true (you know, like when he lied in his original filing about being a nobel prize winner?) and zero additional evidence being introduced in the case.

obviously, I was talking about A VERDICT that is decided AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.

two completely different situations.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:

""What does that do about the rules against self incrimination?"

wow. there is no self-incrimination in a civil case"

There's no self incrimination in a criminal case either: they both exclude it by court procedures, dear.

Anonymous said...

Anon-101a here:
"obviously, I was talking about A VERDICT that is decided AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED."

And the evidence has to be relevant to the case.

Since the case is about what Steyn knows, then evidence for that is all the relevant information.

Since even you claim he has none, this seems, as the judge agrees, to be a slam-dunk win for Mann.

rspung said...

you don't understand (no surprise). no questions are off-limits in a civil case. no questions cannot be answered in a civil case.

"self-incrimination" only refers to criminal activity, not activity related to civil litigation.

your claim that "If Mann isn't on trial, he cannot be forced to testify against himself" is wrong.

mann CAN be forced to testify against himself. he can be required to answer every question put to him by the defendants. he can be required to admit to lying, manipulating data and committing fraud.

if he choses to not answer any of these questions by claiming the fifth, he is toast.

"Since even you claim he [stein] has none, this seems, as the judge agrees, to be a slam-dunk win for Mann."

another lie. I never claimed the defendants didn't have any evidence. in fact, I explained that they have A TON of evidence against mann, including published articles from experts in statistics, mathematics and climatology that explain in great detail how mann misused data and produced fraudulent results.

mann is contradicted by over two hundred peer-reviewed papers confirming the existence of the mwp all over the globe.

you are fond of rewriting history, aren't you?

Brian said...

Rspung's quoting of St. Armant was useful, if you read the actual caselaw.

The Court said a good faith belief in false facts won't be established and prevent liability "when the [defendant's] allegations are so inherently improbable that only a reckless man would have put them in circulation. Likewise, recklessness may be found where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the [information being relied upon as the basis for the defamatory statement]".

The defendant in St. Armant had no information in front of him indicating his statements were wrong - he just failed to investigate his claim. Steyn et al. are in a worse position.

rspung said...

I disagree. the defendants spent a lot of time investigating mann's behavior. and what they found were dozens of critical articles by experts in relevant fields of study.

it is because so much was written about mann's shortcomings that the defendants felt safe making critical remarks about him.

and there will be a ton of supporting evidence to show they had ample and valid reason to feel the way they did.

mann's supporters like to claim there is no evidence of data manipulation or fraud, but the fact is, they haven't bothered to look. there are over two hundred peer-reviewed studies, for example, that contradict mann's claim of a lack of a mwp period.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

the defendants spent a lot of time investigating mann's behavior. and what they found were dozens of critical articles by experts in relevant fields of study.

That's complete nonsense, I know Simberg from the newspace industry and I read his blog and the comments on it, he cites complete political trash and calls it science. He routinely gets eviscerated in the comments. He's completely delusional, like you, swallowed the WUWT koolaide, and that is your ONLY defense, buddy.

rspung said...

lol, I have no idea who simberg is and I don't care. and whether you like it or not, it is an indisputable fact that at least 200 peer-reviewed papers that contradict the hockey stick graph. if you bothered to get out of your cocoon and educate yourself, you could learn a lot.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I have no idea who simberg is and I don't care.

Well you seem to have your panties all in a knot over his libel litigation. As far as the 200 peer reviewed papers, let's see them. Citing Willard doesn't count.

You are pushing crap and everybody knows it but the delusional faithful. No wonder creationism is making such a comeback with you idiots trying to assess science.

Ian Forrester said...

63 rspung said:

"dozens of critical articles by experts in relevant fields of study."

Hey, they should invite Curry as an "expert" witness then we can get her to admit under oath what she made up for her Senate testimony. I expect that most of the "expert" witnesses rspung has in mind will be as incompetent or dishonest as Curry. Mann and his lawyers will be laughing so hard when Steyn parades them in front of a judge.

How can anyone who claims to know so much about the Mann/Steyn case not know who Rand Simberg is? My lie detector just blew another fuse.

rspung said...

"How can anyone who claims to know so much about the Mann/Steyn case not know who Rand Simberg is?"

that's real simple- I don't follow him and I've never read anything he's written.

the hilarious thing about you believers is how emotionally invested you are in this AGW fantasy. you can't post a single comment without throwing a fit and hurling tired, immature insults. it makes me wonder how insecure most of you are, if that's the only way you know how to discuss this topic.

creationism? really?

you want a list of papers? ok, here's several lists:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/evidence-for-a-global-medieval-warm-period/

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=6946bd70cb&e=f4e33fdd1e

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/11/review-paper-finds-medieval-warming-period-was-global-and-warmer-than-the-present/

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I can't wait until Simberg and Steyn parade that crap in front of a judge.

What you fail to realize is the only people that believe you are your buddies in the back room and a bunch of rabid young Earth creationists.

Now, give me an actual peer reviewed scientific journal article cite.

rspung said...

btw, here's an example of what I was talking about earlier. remember when mann claimed the nas "investigated and cleared" his hockey stick?

well, guess what? it never happened. in fact, the opposite happened.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/there-he-goes-again-mann-claims-his.html

this is just one of many examples of (1) mann believers living in an information vacuum, (2) mann flat out lying (like when he claimed to be a nobel prize winner) and (3) how mann's case is going to completely fall apart once discovery and depositions get started.

fun and games!

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

You really got it going there with Marc Morano! Have another holy cracker! Don't forget to wash it down with some sugary koolaide!

Andrew Bolt is an Australian journalist, newspaper columnist, radio commentator, blogger and television host. He is a columnist and former associate editor of the Melbourne-based Herald Sun.

Wow. Just wow.

rspung said...

"Andrew Bolt is an Australian journalist, newspaper columnist, radio commentator, blogger and television host. He is a columnist and former associate editor of the Melbourne-based Herald Sun."

...and everything he wrote in that post can be verified as the truth by reading the nas report.

the nas report even agreed with m&m's criticisms!

mann is going to crash and burn.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Because some guy who heard it from some other guy on an internet website says so! Cuz it's the truth! Damn, you're dumb. You should testify! That's right, get up there and give it to them straight! I mean, what could possibly go wrong citing Wegman?

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Hey unsprung, I have an idea, why don't you put WEGMAN on the stand? That should go over real well.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

And while you're at it, make sure you call Judith Curry to the stand. There are a couple of things some people want to ask her about under oath as well, lol.

rspung said...

"Because some guy who heard it from some other guy on an internet website says so"

no, because the author who wrote the article cited and quoted specific passages and page numbers from the nas report and included a link to the report so anyone can easily verify that he was completely correct in everything he said.

lol, you make this so easy. I can't believe how bad you are at this.

p.s. if you bothered to check, you would find that the nas report also supported the wegman report. in fact, the chairman of the nas panel said "We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report."

hahahahahahahahaha

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

I've read this thoroughly and witnessed the proceeding as they occurred and considered the comments. Have you? Do you even understand it? Do you even understand basic statistics and linear algebra? Advanced theorems in linear algebra at the mathematical proof level?

Give me a break. You're a fraud.

Sue me. lol, o' anonymous one.

Kevin O'Neill said...

rsprung - different results is not fraud. Being *wrong* isn't fraud. Do any of your published scientific articles claim Mann committed fraud?

Hmmm .... in other words, zero evidence of fraud.

Yeah, thought so.

Kevin O'Neill said...

rsprung - here's the relevant quote from the NAS North report:"Here are the relevant statements from the North report:

“As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowry 2000, Huybers 2005, D'Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006).”


I don't see any allegation of fraud there. BTW, was the NAS aware at the time that Wegman was serial plagiarizer and that McIntyre's code was cherry-picking results?

rspung said...

"Do you even understand basic statistics and linear algebra?"

lol, I have a degree in chemical engineering from the top-ranked undergraduate engineering school in the country.

I was also co-awarded us patent #5348662 for a chemical process I helped create.

and I certainly understand that not only the head of the nas panel, but:

the head of the royal statistical society, and

a leading member of the American statistical association

all three agree with both the nas report and the wegman report AND

all three said both reports were in agreement regarding mann's misuse of data and faulty statistical methods.

you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, don't you?

and the funniest part of your clueless blundering is the fact that I GAVE YOU all the information you needed to avoid making a repeat fool of yourself, and you refuse to read it.

who's in denial now? hahahahahahaha

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Ok Mr. Richard C. Sprung of Crosby, Texas, that heavy metal reactor seems to be in widespread use and has made you a very wealthy man no doubt, but I don't see any abstract algebra in the patent dissertation.

So then you should have no problem refuting Deep Climate's and John Mashey's destruction of the Wegman report. I eagerly await your dissertation. Keep it technical.

rspung said...

lol, I don't need to refute anything. like I just showed you, a whole bunch of world-class expert statisticians agreed with the wegman report. including (HAHAHAHAHAHA) one that mann listed in his pleadings as an expert witness he planned to call!

guthrie said...

Okay, that's another example added to the list of why engineers are made fun of.

Kevin O'Neill said...

rsprung - So, everyone of these witnesses will take the stand and say, "No, we never said Michael Mann committed fraud - who told you that?"

And those witnesses that were part of the investigating panels will add, "What? Didn't you read our reports? We cleared him of any allegations of fraud or research misconduct."

Not sure how that helps the defendants.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

I just showed you, a whole bunch of world-class expert statisticians agreed with the wegman report.

Actually, it's more like the lead of an NAS report said that he thought Wegman was a nice enough guy and either wasn't aware of the severe problems of his report, and if he was, wouldn't have committed those errors on purpose. The object was to get Wegman out of the way since he clearly was an embarrassment to science. McIntyre was dealt with properly, in the peer review literature, his claims addressed, which it turns out were insignificant or superfluous, and in some cases, outright wrong. I would welcome the courts going through this again, but since this has been dealt with adequately in the literature and on blogs and other high quality investigative journalism, then I think rather the evidence discovered and presented is going to go to the heart of denialism. If the best you can up with is McIntyre and Wegman, then the plaintiffs have some significant problems with their defense expect by ignorance and stupidity, in which case they would be well advised to apologize and settle.

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

(Deleted double negative in prior comment.)

Rspung helpfully demonstrates how laymen make mistakes on legal issues.

When I showed how to distinguish a precedent Rspung mentioned - there the sincere belief led to no liability because the D had no contrary information available to him - rspung said that Steyn et al. found tons of information showing they're right.

That's the classic mistake of conflating issues. The prior issue he raised was whether a sincere belief was sufficient to eliminate liability, regardless of the belief's accuracy. The new issue he's raising is whether the belief is accurate. You have to keep them separate for purposes of legal analysis.

It's hard to completely separate them - if a judge thought that Mann's work fell in a gray area that may or may not be factually considered fraudulent, then that would weigh in somewhat on whether the publication was reckless, but as a practical matter it's not that important. I expect a judge won't have any problem determining that Mann's work came nowhere close to the bar of being fraudulent.

Kevin O'Neill said...

TLE says:"... that heavy metal reactor seems to be in widespread use and has made you a very wealthy man no doubt, but I don't see any abstract algebra in the patent dissertation."

I think you're being a bit charitable. Their employer owned the patent and judging from the history Jeffrey Yen was probably the main author and researcher. Yen likely added Spongerick's name as a thank you for keeping the lab clean.

On Spongerick's prognosticating abilities we find this golden oldie:

"Rick Spung
August 8, 2009 at 11:14 pm

Interesting post. The number of scientists who believe the globe is cooling (which it is) and man’s CO2 output cannot influence the climate (which is also true) is growing significantly. This is mainly due to two reasons: one, the increased amount of research being done today on the mechanisms affecting climate, and two, the increased attention being paid to claims made by those who claim AGW is real.

For example, the “hockey stick” graph was discredited and James Hanson’s surface temperature data has been shown to be unreliable, due to a Y2K programming error and the placement of weather monitoring stations (most of which are located next to air conditioner outlets and on top of asphalt parking lots or rooftops, which is a violation of the sampling agency’s own protocol).

More and more peer-reviewed studies are being released and distributed among the scientific community, which is helping to turn the tide. And the tide is definitely turning ..."

How are those predictions turning out for ya Rick?

Kevin O'Neill said...

rspung: "lol, I have a degree in chemical engineering from the top-ranked undergraduate engineering school in the country."

Do you want to add a caveat or qualifier to that?

rspung said...

they are turning out fine. as I said, the number of scientists who are coming out against agw (mainly because of the world's continued cooling) are growing. the public's belief in agw is shrinking. Australia elected a new government and terminated most of its green bureaucracy and policies. England just got rid of 80,000 pages of environmental regulations and is embracing fracking whole-heartedly. various European countries such as Germany and spain are slashing green energy subsidies and investing in fossil fuel power plant construction. cap and trade is dead in the u.s. the carbon credit market is dead in both u.s. and Europe.

with regards to climate, avg global temps have not increased in 17 years. the polar bear population is thriving and increasing dramatically. global sea ice coverage is near a record high. the Antarctic is constantly breaking records for high sea ice coverage.

the ipcc has dramatically toned down its predictions of future warming and future sea level rises. gore's environmental advocacy group is almost bankrupt and about 90% of his staff has been laid off.

many previous warmist advocates have switched sides, including one of the founders of greenpeace. every time a warmist attempts to debate agw with a skeptic, he loses convincingly.

yes, things are looking bad for the agw crowd. they are seeing their models fall apart due to their inability to predict any current temperature trends. and agw is dead last in every public opinion poll about which issues are the highest current priority.

the agw scam has peaked and is definitely on a downward slope. and that's good for the world, because green energy is a farce that cannot supply us reliably with the power we need to prosper and grow.

the icing on the cake will come in a year or two when mann loses his case and his reputation is in tatters.

life is good for us skeptics!

Kevin O'Neill said...

I won't even bother with your Gish Gallop; I'll just show how stupid you are:

rspung"...the public's belief in agw is shrinking. "

"In 2009, 35% of Republicans, 53% of independents and 75% of Democrats said there was solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth. Today, half of Republicans (50%), 62% of independents and 88% of Democrats say this, according to our October, 2013 survey."

You're an engineer - do the math.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

You are the keeper of the memo!

rspung said...

lol at kevin... so you found one poll? that's awesome. I found a bunch of them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/19/americans-global-warming/4127803/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/22/how-americans-see-global-warming-in-8-charts/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430649/What-climate-change-Fewer-people-than-EVER-believe-the-world-is-really-warming-up

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/27/most-americans-believe-climate-change-is-real-but-fewer-see-it-as-a-threat/

oh look! I found a poll by pew research that shows fewer people see it as a threat! weren't you the guy that used a pew poll as evidence that I was wrong?

I guess you're the stupid one now.

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Well Rick, if everyone would just change your mind the whole problem will just go away. Having a problem with gravity, just change your mind. Don't like evolution, change your mind! Don't want climate to change, change your mind, and it's gone!

I've got an idea, legislate it away!

Kevin O'Neill said...

rspung - you must have done a lot of plagiarizing to get a degree - because it's obvious you can't actually read.

Your first link shows no statisitcal change in the acceptance of AGW since 2010 (1% decline with a margin of error of +-4%).

Your 2nd link is a reference to the PEW polls - which show an increase in public acceptance of AGW since 2009.

Your 3rd link says this:"Whilst doubts about the reality of climate change have increased in the past three years, the present study nevertheless finds that the level of acceptance of an anthropogenic component to climate change has remained stable over the same period."

Got that? Level of acceptance of AGW has remained stable.

Your 4th link again doesn't say what you think it says. A common problem when you only view headlines on partisan sites and don't actually read the paper itself.

What the report says:"Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics, were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the non-publishing climate scientists and non-publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively."

Contrast this with Doran and Zimmerman (2009) that found 64% meteorologists surveyed were convinced humans have contributed to global warming. Fail.

Your 5th link again takes us back to PEW which shows the numbers have increased since 2009.

So you can't read. Can't interpret numbers. And can't provide any evidence - in fact you provide evidence that contradicts your claim that belief in AGW is declining.

I'd suggest you read and try to understand what you're reading before supplying links next time. Unless your intent is merely to deceive - in which case you'll simply be caught out and made to look the fool you are. Like just now.

David B. Benson said...

Things are seldom what they seem
skim milk masquerades as cream.

--- G&S