Of course, Eli is sitting on the couch, switching back and forth between the World Cup and Monckton
Well Eli was giggling through the comments and came across a letter from Monckton to the world and Leif. The issue is that Chris has invested deeply in Evan's futures, and is watching his pounds flow out the channel, and Leif is, well, rather protective of his turf and terse, compared to the Florid Flouncer. Leif is upset that Evans produced a downturn at the end of his TSI series by padding it in a certain way, and that the data itself is older than Eli and not the best. Bunnies can go over there and read the details if they must. Willard Tony censors comments not eyeballs, and so we have this from Lord Monckton
WARNING:(True, Eli has substituted Mann for Evans in this and Steyn for Svalgaard, but it does not take a good lawyer to imagine that any willingness of Mr. Steyn's lawyers to call Lord Monckton has just plunged. Eli has perhaps enhanced this a bit)
In the Britannosphere, accusations of fraud (and adding the word “almost”, particularly given the manner in which Mra bit of interpolation here to fit the wrong case and
SvalgaardSteyn has interpreted what he meant by “almost”, will not help the defendant much) are taken very seriously indeed by the courts. I have now compiled a list of some of the things Mr SvalgaardSteyn has said about Dr EvansMann. It has taken two hours. That’s a long list.
Thanks to my former career, I have had to become something of an expert in what is and is not libel in multiple jurisdictions. Mr
SvalgaardSteyn’s remarks constitute what is known in British and Australian law as “a libel of Mr EvansMann in his calling” – and a grave one at that. Falsely and repeatedly to accuse a fellow scientist, in the most widely-read public forum on the climate worldwide, of having used wrong data and of having fabricated data, just at the moment when Dr EvansMann is preparing to launch the culmination of many years’ patient work, and to persist in these libels even after having been given numerous plain warnings to desist, would in my not inexpert opinion – if the case were proven – require Mr SvalgaardSteyn to pay Dr EvansMann not less than $100,000 in aggravated damages, particularly because Mr SvalgaardSteyn was given so many opportunities to apologize and persistently failed to take them.
I do not speak for Drand again a break during with Eli wiped the spittle off the inside of his LCD screen, concluding with
EvansMann in any way, and I have no idea of whether he will decide to sue. As a first step, he might request National Review to allow him to answer the allegations in a head posting, which would go some way towards expunging Mr SvalgaardSteyn’s nastly libel of him in his calling as a scientist.
Perhaps in the United States, as one thoughtful commenter has suggested, persistently and falsely calling someone “almost fraudulent” for allegedly “fabricating” scientific data is thought acceptable. Not in Australia. There, as in any British-law jurisdiction, such a libel is taken very seriously indeed. I had hoped I had made that plain to Mr
SvalgaardSteyn, so as to give him the chance to get himself off the hook.
For my part, I am referring Mr
SvalgaardSteyn’s long list of malicious comments about Dr EvansMann (but not about me: I give as good as I get) to his university, which will know best how to handle the matter, for there is a rather delicate aspect that I am not at liberty to discuss here. The university will most certainly realize that the do-nothing option is not an option. The libel is too grave and too persistent. My lawyers are looking at it tomorrow to see whether malice is present, in which case the damages would triple, to say nothing of the costs. Their corresponding lawyers in the U.S. will be giving advice on whether Dr EvansMann would count in U.S. law as a “public figure”, Probably not, from what I know of the “public-figure” test, in which event, in order to enforce the judgement of the Australian courts in the U.S., it would not be necessary to prove malice (for, though malice seems evident, the test in Australian law is high).
It would also be open to Dr
EvansMann simply to apply to the court for a declaration (in Scotland, declarator) that he had not fabricated anything or engaged in any of the other varieties of scientific misconduct of which Mr SvalgaardSteyn has seen fit to accuse him with such vicious and unbecoming persistence.
And there, I think, we had better leave it and let the appropriate authorities take over. I have only been as explicit as this because this posting will also go some little way towards expunging the libel and minimizing the damage to DrEli is sure that Prof. Mann's lawyers will call Lord Monckton as a witness of law. Ethon will provide transportation free of cost, however, Eli is also sure that Mycroft and Scrotum are arranging a long trip to the end of nowhere for Chris.
EvansMann’ reputation that Mr SvalgaardSteyn seems to have intended.