Michael Mann filed three briefs last week in the ongoing defamation lawsuit. In one he claims:
In view of the defendants’ initial public bravado regarding Dr. Mann, their latest attempt to avoid a trial on this matter rings hollow–and basic principles of equity and fairness should estop them from now seeking an appeal. Defendants baited Dr. Mann to file this lawsuit. After he asked for a retraction and apology, the defendants told their readers that they would welcome a lawsuit because it would give them the opportunity to take discovery from Dr. Mann and his colleagues. They boasted they would hire dedicated staff to sift through that discovery and make it publicly available.1 They raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from their readers to pursue this discovery. They proclaimed they would “kick” Dr. Mann’s “legal heinie” in court.
LEGAL_17107968v1_OppositiontoMotionforInterlocutoryCertificationClick for the brief.
The problem for The National Review is that they repeated the allegation that Mann’s science was fraudulent. Fraud implies an intentional act to deceive, but most scientists today think the hockey-stick data are correctly drawn. Traditionally when someone calls someone else a liar in print, which should include on the internet, the other person can sue for libel.
Truth is a defense. If NRO can prove that the science is fraudulent, there is no suit. It will be interstesting
If only clouds could make their way into climate models…
This is all very odd to me. Dr Mann could have upped the level of this by going on tour to all college campuses with someone on the other side of the issue to debate this. It would have been a big money maker for him, and also showed him in a light that would have elevated him above the fray( the same for whoever was debating him on the other side). As far back as 2006, in a blog, I opined that instead of the numerous and onerous presidential debates that were on then, we should be conducting debates on this issue. A sort of modern court of Catherine the Great.
The proper way to settle this is to watch the facts, which have turned in the favor of the skeptics…at least for now, but by debate and challenge the other side would be able to rebut and then FORECAST WHEN THE RISE WILL START AGAIN. But Dr. Mann, as one of the main targets of my sides wrath, who does not understand the reason is because he will not answer challenges to him. Perhaps it is the nature of the discipline in climate in general, to talk in longer scale terms and ignore the present, or contradictions of the past. But in coming to a solution, debate and competition is always needed. In fact in the weather, its essential! I dont know why that would not be the case in something like climate.
But if this case is to go forward, there is going to be alot of discovery, and alot of people that wanted this debate, whether by design or accident, are going to see what they have wanted to see all along.
Sort of a shame, this could have been a real positive.. reminds me of the song.. So many things we could have done, but clouds got in the way ( see weather and climate have their hands in everything!)
Dr. Mann needs an incredibly friendly, or completely stupid judge if he is not to be in big trouble.
I’m not sure what the attorneys are attempting to do on either side, but I would assume this is a standard practice in for both sides, and means nothing. I was involved in a lawsuit once and I have to say that attorneys don’t see the world the same way the rest of us do….and in point of fact give be a headache. Having said that I have to ask – who baited Mann into suing Dr. Tim Ball? And has he turned over the documents required by the Canadian court. There is where he faces his biggest nightmare because Dr. Ball didn’t choose the ‘fair comment’ defense. Ball decided his defense would be the truth. In Canada this is called “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.” Mann attempted to implement SLAPP lawsuits in both cases and it isn’t working so now he claims he has been ‘baited’ into this whole mess. I do have one question. Who is funding Dr. Mann’s lawsuits? Dr. Ball had to appeal to the public for donations to defend himself. Are we to believe that Dr. Mann is paid that much better?
Left off the “but first we’ll need to get his big fat head out of the way.”
Please stop me before I file suit again!!!
Is he attempting the “I’m a sucker” defense?
Who baited him into the hockey stick affair?
A couple of weeks ago, I pointed out ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=671 ) how some Michael Mann’s ClimateGate emails were directly related to one of the main promoters of the idea that skeptic scientists were paid by ‘big coal & oil’ to lie about AGW. Mann himself repeats this accusation, citing books and people relating directly to that same accusation promoter. At best, Mann has been pushing an accusation against his critics for years that he has no way of proving.
Why he is still practically begging for deep investigation into this specific problem of his is beyond me.