8 thoughts on “DC Court affirms Michael Mann’s right to proceed in defamation lawsuit against National Review and CEI”
The judge makes several factual misstatements in her ruling.
1) there were approx 8 investigations resulting from the climategate controversy which the judge states exonerated him. Only two of which investigated mann directly. As I recall, another one or two indirectly investigated a minor issue with Mann, but not substantively.
2) As documented in the NSF report, the Penn investigation was substandard, yet the judge claims Mann exonerated by Penn. The NSF report defines academic frauds as falsifying the data and / or finding one result and publishing a different result. What Mann was accused of doing was selecting (cherrypicking ) certain data sets, overweighting certain data sets, and using statistical methods to achieve the hockey stick. What the NSF report said (in translation for the layman) was that those steps are within the scientist’s judgement and therefore not scientific fraud.
3) The judge mentioned the other hockey reconstructions that “proved Mann correct. Bear in mind, those other hockey stick reconstructions used the same data sets and similar methods,
Looked up the Judge on the Internet. She appears to be a straight down the line liberal who will back Mann to the hilt. Comments on one site really give her a bad rating for legal knowledge and fairness. Look her up for yourself.
So, things are looking pretty grim for the bad guys.
Solution? To the Crackpot Cave! Double down on the denialism, with extra helpings of creationism, birtherism, and fantasies of murdering your political opponents. Remember, the first four are just stupid but there are actual laws against the last.
Coach Springer is probably correct. If available, the defts should appeal. I believe these motions would have been granted in CA under Briggs v. ECHO.
Still waiting to see the funding for Mann’s case. The deep pockets for the defense is – small volunteer donations like mine. Trust me, this is not good for the defense. And Mann will never comply with discovery. He will just drag it out at no personal cost other than his already trashed reputation. On the other hand, he might force a settlement of an undisclosed amount of something very small based on the cost to the defense.
I guess part of their defence is now going to have to argue that the investigations carried out in to Manns work should be set aside as none of them should be considered independent in that they were all akin to the scientists investigating themselves and thus declaring themselves innocent, sort of like what happened at Penn State with its own debased investigation in to the actions of its coach.
Regards
Mailman
I have been following his lawsuits from the beginning and this couldn’t be better news. I’m sure that Mann and his cronies thought they could just institute Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuits on their detractors. In other words, they wish to intimidate into silence those who disagree with them with the cost of the lawsuit. However, lawsuits are like riding tigers. You can’t just get off and say….I was only kidding! There are counter suits and in “U.S. law there is the pre-trial phase in which each party, can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas.” “When discovery requests are objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.” Discovery can be devastating; ask Paula Deen!
Mann will now have to produce papers and e-mails he has been trying to hide for years, including all the e-mails he has been hiding from Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli with the help of the University of Virginia, claiming this is an attempt to infringe on scientific freedom.
In the Canadian case he instituted against Dr. Tim Ball my understanding he still hasn’t turned over the documents required by the courts, and Ball didn’t choose the ‘fair comment’ defense. Canada’s rules regarding libel allows someone can choose “The Truth Defense to Libel”, which “places a higher – more onerous – evidential burden on the parties. This means any and all evidence demanded by either party in the ongoing discovery process must be revealed. So effective can the “truth defense” be that some cynics refer to it as the “scorched earth” defense.”
He will now have to face this issue in two countries. Mann will now have the opportunity to either destroy his detractors, or he is going to bring himself and his cronies down into the pit. I can’t wait for this to go forward.
The judge makes several factual misstatements in her ruling.
1) there were approx 8 investigations resulting from the climategate controversy which the judge states exonerated him. Only two of which investigated mann directly. As I recall, another one or two indirectly investigated a minor issue with Mann, but not substantively.
2) As documented in the NSF report, the Penn investigation was substandard, yet the judge claims Mann exonerated by Penn. The NSF report defines academic frauds as falsifying the data and / or finding one result and publishing a different result. What Mann was accused of doing was selecting (cherrypicking ) certain data sets, overweighting certain data sets, and using statistical methods to achieve the hockey stick. What the NSF report said (in translation for the layman) was that those steps are within the scientist’s judgement and therefore not scientific fraud.
3) The judge mentioned the other hockey reconstructions that “proved Mann correct. Bear in mind, those other hockey stick reconstructions used the same data sets and similar methods,
Looked up the Judge on the Internet. She appears to be a straight down the line liberal who will back Mann to the hilt. Comments on one site really give her a bad rating for legal knowledge and fairness. Look her up for yourself.
So, things are looking pretty grim for the bad guys.
Solution? To the Crackpot Cave! Double down on the denialism, with extra helpings of creationism, birtherism, and fantasies of murdering your political opponents. Remember, the first four are just stupid but there are actual laws against the last.
Coach Springer is probably correct. If available, the defts should appeal. I believe these motions would have been granted in CA under Briggs v. ECHO.
Still waiting to see the funding for Mann’s case. The deep pockets for the defense is – small volunteer donations like mine. Trust me, this is not good for the defense. And Mann will never comply with discovery. He will just drag it out at no personal cost other than his already trashed reputation. On the other hand, he might force a settlement of an undisclosed amount of something very small based on the cost to the defense.
I guess part of their defence is now going to have to argue that the investigations carried out in to Manns work should be set aside as none of them should be considered independent in that they were all akin to the scientists investigating themselves and thus declaring themselves innocent, sort of like what happened at Penn State with its own debased investigation in to the actions of its coach.
Regards
Mailman
I have been following his lawsuits from the beginning and this couldn’t be better news. I’m sure that Mann and his cronies thought they could just institute Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) lawsuits on their detractors. In other words, they wish to intimidate into silence those who disagree with them with the cost of the lawsuit. However, lawsuits are like riding tigers. You can’t just get off and say….I was only kidding! There are counter suits and in “U.S. law there is the pre-trial phase in which each party, can obtain evidence from the opposing party by means of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas.” “When discovery requests are objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.” Discovery can be devastating; ask Paula Deen!
Mann will now have to produce papers and e-mails he has been trying to hide for years, including all the e-mails he has been hiding from Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli with the help of the University of Virginia, claiming this is an attempt to infringe on scientific freedom.
In the Canadian case he instituted against Dr. Tim Ball my understanding he still hasn’t turned over the documents required by the courts, and Ball didn’t choose the ‘fair comment’ defense. Canada’s rules regarding libel allows someone can choose “The Truth Defense to Libel”, which “places a higher – more onerous – evidential burden on the parties. This means any and all evidence demanded by either party in the ongoing discovery process must be revealed. So effective can the “truth defense” be that some cynics refer to it as the “scorched earth” defense.”
He will now have to face this issue in two countries. Mann will now have the opportunity to either destroy his detractors, or he is going to bring himself and his cronies down into the pit. I can’t wait for this to go forward.
Is he going to sue the Sun also………………………
http://www.thegwpf.org/study-arctic-climate-sea-ice-extent-related-solar-activity/