While it’s not getting that much coverage, I’m sure anyone reading this is aware that the Mann v Steyn trial is on. In this new age of podcasting we have some podcasters doing daily podcasts with actors doing reenactments of highlights from the trial. They have an actor with a nice Shakspearian voice to portray Mark Steyn. Tom Nelson even has a podcast interview with one of the podcasters. There’s also daily running commentary at Steyn Online where you can find WEBEX links to watch the trial on line. They’ll take you to a court PDF page where you can scroll down to page 518 where you can click the link (with a little bit of fuss) to watch the trial. Court proceedings start at 9:30 AM Eastern Time US from Mondays through Thursdays.

Whatever you do, don’t miss Brad Keyes running commentary at Judith Curry’s. A sample:

Joe, what’s so confusing?

The “residuals”, as Professor Mann explained using words that even we blue-collar folk understand, are:

1. irrelevantia the readers of his paper don’t need to see
2. (though Tim might find them helpful),
3. which could be weaponized to undermine the entire edifice of Western science for the last 300 years if the wrong people got their hands on his dirty laundry, where:
4a. ‘wrong people’ is a colloquial term used in private emails to refer to people of ‘bad faith,’
4a(ii). as opposed to legitimate climate scientists, who are famous the world over for their faith;
4b. and ‘dirty laundry’ is a medical condition suffered by navigators of Schmidt Creek who pack insufficient paddles.

I would be happy to deep-clean any residuum of mystery you may be experiencing.

Yours &c.

Got to go. Trials coming up.

_____________________________________

[Update: The trial is being moved to Room 132 – New link]

Tags: ,

95 Comments

  1. Thanks Mike for all the links. Against my own predictions (so they must have only been scenarios) I have just watched a bit of the court video. And read this from the lady reporting on Steyn’s own site:

    Compare Mann’s situation to that of Canadian scientist Tim Ball, who was brought up today in testimony and who, in 2011, also disagreed with Mann. Mann, similarly, sued Ball for defamation. And similarly, the case languished in the Canadian courts for years. But due to the numerous delays, the judge in Canada finally dismissed the case against Ball and ordered Mann to pay Ball’s court costs. Mann never paid and Ball died in 2022, leaving his widow destitute from the case….

    That may clear up a mini-debate Mark and I were having on your previous thread. No hint of Mann having paid anything. Report here

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Just commented at Judy’s:

    It’s NOT looking good for Team Mann.

    Weatherford is exposing, one after the other, every failure of Mann and his team to truthfully respond to interrogatories in the early days of this trial.

    Long story short, one of the standard discovery questions in a defamation case is: please disclose all OTHER statements by all OTHER people (not subject to this lawsuit) that have injured your reputation.

    This is analogous to taking out car insurance; you’re legally required to disclose all preexisting damage to your vehicle.

    Lawyers call this step “accounting for” damage done by third parties (not the defendants). The obvious monetary metaphor is: if you claim that you’ve suffered $X harm, please reveal how much of this is due to *other* parties so it can be subtracted from any award if you win.

    And the burden is on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff alone, to do this “accounting” during discovery.

    Out of *eleven* sources of damage to his good name over the last 12 years, guess how many Mann disclosed when asked to do so under oath?

    If you guessed “one”, you’re too high.

    Mann is wilting under her questions, and his own suits haven’t jumped in to save him with an objection in what feels like hours.

    He doesn’t even know what she means by “accounting for,” so she’s forced to walk him through his own mess slowly like a brain-damaged puppy.

    At his weakest, he actually blurted out words to the effect of, “All this stuff is public! These [blog traducements, tweeted calumnies, slanderous music videos] are all out there—it’s not like we’re hiding anything!”

    I’m getting deja vu. Anyone else remember the excuses for HTD?

    “We didn’t hide the decline, we just didn’t SHOW it in the graph. But I’m sure there’s some article by Briffa that talked about it 5 years ago. All the information is out there.”

    This goateed gouger hasn’t learned a thing from Climategate.

    He still thinks it’s everyone ELSE’S job to disentangle his web of crap.

    Here Lies a Mann.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. I’ve never witnessed (any part of) a defamation trial before but it wasn’t hard to pick up the pre-lunch session, the principle of which Brad has I’m sure summarised accurately. I won’t watch much more (I’m scenariorising) but it was highly enjoyable to see Weatherford closing down all Mann’s talking points, with the judge backing her up, by which he was trying to divert attention from the sad fact that he had provided no ‘third parties’ who had also defamed him, and all relevant details thereof, as requested in writing by the very lawyer who was asking him.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. IF it’s true that Tim Ball’s legal costs of Mann’s legal action against him remain unpaid, despite a Court order that he should pay them, then I should have thought that Steyn and his co-defendant might be able to use that in the current case, possibly to help win the case, and should they lose, to reduce the award of damages. Just a thought.

    Like

  5. Why does defense counsel let Mann get away with *routinely* characterizing Judith Curry (among others) as a “climate denier” and “promoter of climate denial”?

    Why let him repeatedly tell what is, if taken at face value, a lie without being called on it?

    Because everybody understands what he means?

    Really?

    I wonder how many of the jury would understand that Judith Curry

    – doesn’t deny the climate
    – doesn’t deny climate change
    – doesn’t deny MAN MADE climate change

    ?

    “What *exactly* did you just call Judith Curry, Dr Mann?

    “In what sense, *exactly,* are you not committing perjury when you say that?”

    Liked by 5 people

  8. This defamation trial, the way it’s being reported live on social media, is turning into something far more significant than Mann vs. Steyn; it is becoming, in the public consciousness at least, a verdict on the legitimacy of climate change itself, graphically illustrated in all its scariness by the Hockey Stick; thus, by definition, it is becoming a verdict on the necessity and urgency of Net Zero. Mann is being demolished in court. His spiteful, petty, vindictive, obnoxious personality is on show for all the world to see. If he loses, it’s not just his credibility which goes south, the Hockey Stick loses and climate science loses. Interesting times

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Jaime

    it is becoming, in the public consciousness at least, a verdict on the legitimacy of climate change itself

    I’d say steady on there. It’s becoming that in the consciousness of climate sceptics maybe. What we need is a big defeat for Mann in this DC court (and that would be seen by many as a miracle in itself) followed by widespread coverage across the world in media that is not normally sceptical. I’m not saying that’s impossible or that something less than that is worthless. But I feel I’ve learned to be well, sceptical about my own euphoria sometimes.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Jaime,

    I’m afraid I share Richard’s scepticism. We know how this works. If Mann wins, the MSM will report fully on the result, with the Guardian and the BBC cheer- leading. A renowned and eminent climate scientist will have been entirely vindicated. Climate deniers will have got their just desserts. The science will have been proved to be right. The BBC will probably end up commissioning and showing a drama series, with a handsome, famous and much-loved actor playing the part of Michael Mann.

    But if he loses…. tumbleweed. Eventually people might start to learn of the result. Perhaps the Telegraph or GB News would report on it. At that point the usual suspects will circle the wagons. The judgment will be flawed. Perhaps evidence of jury tampering will be talked of darkly. There will be an appeal. It would be wrong to draw conclusions until the appeal has been heard (no doubt not for a long time). In any event, the judgment will have been about a libel claim between individuals, and cast no doubt on climate science. The decision will be a gift to far-right deniers, and we must be on our guard against it being used by evil people for nefarious ends. And so on.

    Still, it’s fun watching, even if it’s anything but fun for all involved, especially the defendants.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. I don’t have much time to give to this excellent example of the complexities of the US legal system. But reading through the comments on Judith Curry’s thread I found this helpful and it lines up with my impression of the judge in the small segment I watched:

    joethenonclimatescientist | January 23, 2024 at 8:29 am

    Jim2 – a few comments – My observation is that this judge understands the applicable standards. He is sustaining almost all the defenses objections and sustaining the objections rapidly, which to me indicates he understands the issues.

    As a follow up on the purpose of Oreskes testimony – the applicable standard in a Libel case is both that A) the statement was false and B) the the defendant knew the statement was false (or should have known it was false).

    At the time the Simburg and Steyn made the statement, it was considerable criticism of the HS. If the criticism had merit, then the defendant would have reason to believe his statement was true. If they plaintiff can show that any criticism outside the peer review process is inherently invalid, then the plaintiff has better shot at demonstrating that the defendant knew his statement was false. Thus the purpose of Oreskes testimony is to discredit McIntyre as early as possible.

    I have reasonable confidence in this judge so far. Because that hurdle of having to know the statement was false and because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, I would not be surprised that there would be a directed verdict when the plaintiff rests their case , or alternatively, very good jury instructions which details the applicable standard.

    It is all fascinating. There’s no law against finding it fascinating. Well, yet 🙂

    What a great thing if there is a resounding victory for the defendants.

    (Just to balance up my previous comment!)

    Liked by 1 person

  13. My problem is that all my information about this case comes from sceptical sites like this one. I speculate whether or not this information is biased or at the very least, slanted. What causes me to speculate is the argument (in my mind only?) that if Mann’s position is so very poor (as is suggested from what I read) why isn’t his legal team appraising him of this and seeking a more gentle exit for him?

    I agree with Mark that if Mann loses it will be downplayed and the result divorced, as far as possible, from any implications for climate change dogma. Possibly the fact that other people have produced similar hockey sticks will be emphasised.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Richard/Mark,

    On the basis of past performance, you may well be right. But the Attack of the Killer Climate Denial Fun-Sponges is relentless now and not just twice a day, as Emma Pinchbeck would like to believe. Setbacks are going to become less frequent and more temporary and victories are going to start to become more permanent and more frequent:

    Like

  15. Alan, good question.

    Possible answer: his legal team’s fees are being paid by the David Suzuki foundation. Mann himself has never received a bill for their services. So he has less reason than the average litigant to demand value for money, and they have no incentive to advise their client to hit the Eject button any sooner than absolutely necessary. Why kill the goose that lays the $1200/hr eggs?

    Liked by 2 people

  16. And also Alan, it’s great to hear from you after so long. Ditto to everyone here. How are Geoff and Ian doing these days? I’ve missed you guys, and I mean that in the most non-gendered and throat-lumpy way.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. I concur Alan. The White House confirmed their position on the existential threat of co2 levels the other day- https://penguinempirereports.substack.com/p/context-on-bidens-lng-decision

    I drove past a CNG station yesterday on my way to PA to see if we could identify names on a few headstones. Finding records, and then physical artifacts, from back in the late 1700’s and 1800’s can be a bit of a challenge. Luckily my wife loves to do research! Last month we lucked out in our searches through a couple of graveyards. Some very old veteran plaques were flying flags next to some very weathered monuments in the vicinity of previously identified/verified resting sites of my ancestors. We forgot to bring a soft bristled brush with us yesterday! We did have enough water with us. My left hand became the brush to clean enough dirt, mold, etc off three sides of one of the monuments for Robin to take pictures and do rubbings on the stone. It seems we can verify the site of three more relatives. My uncle Harry would be pleased with Robin’s investigative skills (she has tenacity similar to Mike Steyn’s) as he started the research 50/60 years ago.

    PS I have a feeling the authorities are going to find it difficult to force the Amish to accept grid power and abandon natural gas as a source of energy as the gas just so happens to be under some of their lands.

    Like

  18. Brad:

    And also Alan, it’s great to hear from you after so long. Ditto to everyone here. How are Geoff and Ian doing these days? I’ve missed you guys, and I mean that in the most non-gendered and throat-lumpy way.

    For my part, your insights into the thought-leadership of Michaelmas Mann, world-class scientist, have been sorely missed:

    Brad Keyes | January 24, 2024 at 11:53 pm

    Joe, what’s so confusing?

    The “residuals”, as Professor Mann explained using words that even we blue-collar folk understand, are:

    1. irrelevantia the readers of his paper don’t need to see
    2. (though Tim might find them helpful),
    3. which could be weaponized to undermine the entire edifice of Western science for the last 300 years if the wrong people got their hands on his dirty laundry, where:
    4a. ‘wrong people’ is a colloquial term used in private emails to refer to people of ‘bad faith,’
    4a(ii). as opposed to legitimate climate scientists, who are famous the world over for their faith;
    4b. and ‘dirty laundry’ is a medical condition suffered by navigators of Schmidt Creek who pack insufficient paddles.

    I would be happy to deep-clean any residuum of mystery you may be experiencing.

    Yours &c.

    Others talk about Schmidt Creek but you’ve been there and done it – and have the badly soiled t-shirt to show for it. (Seeing you ‘interact’ with David Appell on the ontological necessity of the hockey stick is a related treat.)

    Liked by 2 people

  19. But surely Brad the legal team has a duty to keep costs to a minimum for those paying them (the David Suzuki Foundation), especially if this might involve a final award (plus penalties) if the case is lost. But I suppose that Mann and the Foundation cannot conceive of any circumstance where they can lose given the nature of the evidence supporting the hockey stick (sarc).

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Nice to interact with you again Brad. Don’t be a stranger here, your voice and opinions have been much missed

    Liked by 3 people

  21. Alan:

    My problem is that all my information about this case comes from sceptical sites like this one. I speculate whether or not this information is biased or at the very least, slanted. What causes me to speculate is the argument (in my mind only?) that if Mann’s position is so very poor (as is suggested from what I read) why isn’t his legal team appraising him of this and seeking a more gentle exit for him?

    Brad’s reply on the second part makes perfect sense to me – if Team Mann is headed towards an expensive loss. But, on the first, Mike D says on Curry’s thread that “DeSmog is the only blog I can find trying to put a good face on Mann’s side”. And I think

    In D.C. Defamation Trial, Climatologist Michael Mann Confronts the Climate Deniers Who Maligned His Work

    published two days ago, is well worth a read. Not pleasant but it expresses the corrupted messaging that governs the plaintiffs’ hopes.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Also learned from the Climate Etc thread, this is a really good explainer video on Hide The Decline, without histrionics or overstatement, from four years ago.

    Steve Mc speaks to camera, though he would be the first to say that Climategate was about a whole lot more than HTD.

    Like

  23. Richard,

    Thanks for the DeSmog link. I generally find them to be among the most unpleasant of the alarmist websites, and their coverage of the Mann trial lives up to that view. However, Alan is absolutely right that it’s important to see these things from a different perspective, to try to form an objective opinion. And, although it’s O/T, I was interested to read an article with which I suspect most of us here could agree:

    “Drax Wants to Capture State Subsidies, Not Carbon
    The firm’s proposal to bury emissions from burning wood under the North Sea is still a pipe dream, says campaigner Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch.”

    https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/19/drax-wants-to-capture-state-subsidies-not-carbon/

    Liked by 1 person

  24. From one of Judith’s links — from the late great Max Anacker:

    manacker | January 27, 2014 at 5:24 pm |

    The Shtick
    (a saga in seven verses)

    A young climate guru named Mick
    Developed a neat hockey shtick
    Using bristlecone pine
    And hiding decline
    In a really bizzare “Nature trick”

    The beauty about his new chart
    Was the warning it meant to impart
    That it really had not
    Ever been quite so hot
    (It was truly a real work of art)

    “This is great!” said the I-P-C-C
    And then stuck it on page one with glee
    Without verification
    In their new publication
    For policymakers to see

    But soon two intrepid Canucks
    Started digging into Mickey’s books
    They found errors galore
    Phony math and what’s more
    A conclusion that basically sucks

    While poor Mick was unhappy, indeed
    Other experts were now all agreed
    The conclusion’s baloney
    The science is phony
    And statistically not up to speed

    Mickey’s shtick is now long dead and gone
    But its memory still lingers on
    With some doomsday believers
    And green eager beavers
    Who still haven’t really caught on

    As a scientist Mick’s defamation
    Has caused him immense consternation
    So to salvage his name
    And win back his fame
    He’s now trying it with litigation.

    Mann versus Steyn

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Alan, to correct myself before the universe does:

    It’s Scott Supermandia’s Climate Science Defense Fund that seems to be footing the bill for this. My apologies to Davis Suzuki. Meanwhile outside the court, Mann perseverated in a shtumm condition when asked who his benefactors are. He might not even know himself.* When was the last time he reached into his own pocket for anything?

    In any case, losing won’t cost Mann a cent. This is America, dagnavit, not Communist Canada. A mann can’t be compelled to pay some climate denier’s funeral costs just because he frivolously litigated them to an early grave.

    *but then who among us reallly knows ourself—let alone ourselves? Temet nosce! Perhaps I should have said that Mann himself might not even know.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. “…to hide the decline.” was found by sixteen independent investigations, none of which considered that email specifically, to have been a Schadenfreudian slip.

    Like

  32. I recommend that anyone who has not done so has a look at this article – Some Notes On The Trial Of Mann v. Steyn – by the always excellent Francis Menton. It’s a useful summary of the trial so far.

    Having noted that, in the blogs that are the subject of the case, Steyn and Simberg called Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’ graph false and deceptive, Menton makes a critically important observation:

    ‘Truth is an absolute defense in a libel case, and Steyn has vowed to prove that his blog post was true. That would then mean that the Hockey Stick graph was indeed fraudulent. Many are therefore referring to this spectacle as “the Hockey Stick on trial.” And the Hockey Stick very much is on trial, at least as one of the issues in the case. However, if you have watched some of the proceedings — seven days’ worth so far — you are likely getting quite frustrated with how little the actual truth or falsity of the graph itself figures into the matter.’

    I agree. It’s vitally important that Steyn makes a good job of his cross-examination of Mann next week.

    Liked by 7 people

  33. “But if he loses…. tumbleweed.”

    I think more likely: spin.

    “Mann lost because the jury decided Steyn and Simberg were such cranks, nobody could possibly take their opinion seriously.”

    That’s why Phelim, Ann and we have a duty to bear witness to what actually happened in the room. Under US court procedures, a defamation suit rejected by a jury does not result in any official record of the reasons for its failure. So there is literally nothing stopping Mann’s team spinning it out of all resemblance to reality. Nothing except better, detailed reportage day by day from our side.

    Liked by 4 people

  34. Brad and Alan, I don’t think Supermandia’s defense fund is funding this. Mann is not defending himself from a suit. He’s instigating one. I think there’s a more shadowy climate science OFFENSE fund.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. I think we should be careful not to get too excited about this. Three reasons:

    1. It’s may prove unfortunate that Mark Steyn has opted to represent himself. There’s some truth in the old saying that ‘he who represents himself has a fool for a client’.

    2. As Francis Menton noted recently, ‘Truth is an absolute defense in a libel case’. Correct – but establishing that defence is rarely easy and may be quite difficult in this case.

    3. The establishment will be desperate for Mann to prevail. Don’t forget: ‘lawfare’ in the US is almost out of control – especially in ‘blue’ states such as DC where this case is being held.

    Liked by 3 people

  40. Francis Menton has posted another article – Further Notes On Mann v. Steyn: The Plaintiff Rests – about the trial. It’s mainly a clear and interesting summary of how Mann’s claim of damages has developed. Overall it doesn’t look so good for Mann. Menton also refers to some interesting exchanges about ‘ClimateGate’.

    Reverting to my earlier comment about ‘lawfare’ in ‘blue’ states, I thought this comment by E Olsen was interesting:

    …the DC jury is almost certainly 99% Democrat which automatically means they are terrified about the climate but have zero scientific knowledge so they would be politically inclined to support Mann. Furthermore, the judge can provide “jury instructions” that can put one side at great disadvantage, and given the DC venue is seems more than likely the judge is also a Democrat and likely to “instruct” in ways that favor Mann.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Good article, supportive of Steyn. (He has a lot of fans down-under it seems.)

    Initially they let me read it without being subscribed.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Robin. everything is a stitchup these days, though fingers crossed
    You made a great comment a few weeks back where you said courts decide guilt not on what you’ve actually done, but rather on what side you sit. So greens always win in court ..and righties always lose
    I really need to go back and track down your exact quote.

    Like

  44. Francis Menton has posted another article – Trial of Mann v. Steyn Part III: More On Damages; Simberg And Steyn’s First Witness – about the trial. Good stuff – well worth a read.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. It seems to me there are two issues here:

    1. Was the accusation of scientific fraud by Steyn re. construction of the hockey stick justifiable?
    2. Can Mann justify his claim that he suffered loss of income/grant donations as a direct result of 1.?

    1. might be difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, but it certainly looks like Mann’s case is going to falter on 2.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. The plaintiff cannot prove that any reduction in grant money was as a result of the Simberg/Steyn articles. That seems a matter of basic logic.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Jit: Judy Curry was just devastating as a witness (who has been on many grant boards) on this point.

    Mann’s lawyers are now trying to discredit her, of course.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Curry said she had never heard of Simberg in 2012 and didn’t imagine that any climate scientist or grant decider had, meaning the idea that his article had led to any reduction in grant funding was prima facie ridiculous. (She didn’t quite say all that but that’s where the questioning led.)

    The efforts to discredit Judy, through the accusations of two anonymous members of Georgia Tech faculty at the time of her annual review in 2012, were pathetic. The judge has sustained almost all the objections by Simberg’s lawyers as Mann’s guys tried to wheedle in anything to distract from the nonsense of their claims on damage. The judge seems to like Dr Curry.

    No idea what the DC jury makes of any of it though.

    Liked by 2 people

  49. Steve Mc is amazingly clear as a witness on the background to the hockey stick controversy. The first question asking whether he thought it was ‘deceptive’ was objected to by Mann’s lawyers and the judge agreed. I’m sure they’ll come back to it. They’re now into the r-squared (or r2) verification result that was calculated but then suppressed by Mann.

    [Addendum: In case it isn’t clear, there were many questions that didn’t go into Mann’s motives prior to the one mentioning the word ‘deceptive’ which was struck from the record.]

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Mann’s lawyers are now objecting to Steve’s description of his ‘exhausted disappointment’ at the nasty tone of the ‘hundreds’ of references to him in the Climategate emails being accepted into evidence. Overruled.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. Simberg’s lawyers are very well organised on the details of the Penn State review of Mann post-Climategate and its mistatements. Impressive and encouraging to see.

    Liked by 3 people

  52. Both witness and lawyer very impressive in that session. Steyn’s one question was then objected to and didn’t make it into the record. Steve will now be cross-examined by Mann’s men after a ten-minute break.

    Liked by 2 people

  53. Francis Menton has posted another article – Trial of Mann v. Steyn, Part IV: The Defense Case – about the trial. A useful summary. His concluding paragraph:

    ‘My own reaction listening to this is to be horrified at the unscientific and unethical conduct of Mann. The omission of unfavorable data and adverse statistical results is inexcusable. Yet the entire scientific establishment seems totally willing to excuse and even honor Mann because he is an energetic advocate for their political agenda. The whole thing is sickening. And it is not clear to me at all that a D.C. jury, whose members likely share the political agenda of Mann and of the scientific establishment, will follow the facts and law in this case.’

    I’m getting increasingly pessimistic about the outcome of this. I hope I’m wrong.

    Like

  54. I was optimistic at first. But a court of law was never going to be a suitable venue to prove or disprove scientific fraud. Mann has been exposed as vile pustule on the backside of climate science academia which he undeniably is, and he has failed to demonstrate real, material damages from the fraud allegations. But nevertheless, the very specific accusation of actual scientific fraud probably won’t stick and Mann will probably be awarded damages for hurt feelings and the unquantifiable harm to his ‘reputation’ – which ironically has suffered further grievous harm during this trial, on account of him being demonstrably and undeniably exposed as a complete asshole and a misogynist. But we all knew that anyway.

    Like

  56. Liked by 1 person

  59. Jury’s verdict imminent.

    Whatever it is, this deserves attention

    Like

  61. Apparently. Lamentations.

    Like

  62. I don’t know what to say… if the podcast was accurate, the defendants seem to win every round.

    Like

  63. This is a most unfortunate decision and seems to defy all logic given the apparent lack of evidence offered by Michael Mann, his wilful perjury in representing the value of grant applications that Mann submitted to various funding bodies and the strength of the defence case. However, I think that Mann has been exposed and suspect that his standing both within the climate science community and amongst the public at large, if not in the MSM, has been irreparably damaged. It is also quite likely that his current employer, the University of Pennsylvania will not look favourably on the antics revealed by defence witnesses including Judith Curry, Roger Pielke jr., Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick amongst others.

    Like

  66. My immediate concern is for Steyn. He is not in the best of health and to have that obnoxious toad, who has run him ragged for 12 years at zero personal cost to himself – having been supported all the way by dark Green money – now gloating all over the internet and the media re. this corrupt verdict may just prove too much for the guy.

    Liked by 3 people

  67. Francis Menton has another update on the closing arguments. He’s most unimpressed by Mann’s lawyer. His final comment:

    ‘And finally, Williams made a pitch for punitive damages. In his pitch, Williams started to say “These attacks on climate scientists have to stop.” Again, there was an immediate objection, again sustained. In effect, Williams was arguing for abrogation of the First Amendment as to the climate debate. I find it outrageous. But will the jury?’

    The answer – as I’ve feared all along – is No.

    https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-8-trial-of-mann-v-steyn-part-v-jury-instructions-and-closing-argument

    Like

  68. Sadness, scratching of heads, and – on this side of the Pond, at least – once more a failure to “get” the US Courts system and judicial process. Like Jaime, I feel sorry for Steyn. It’s a pity he couldn’t afford to hire a layer. The one acting for Simberg seems to have saved him a lot of money.

    I doubt if Steyn has the resources or health to contemplate an appeal. Not understanding the US system, I assume that an appeal could be on a point of law anyway (though there might well be one, regarding the operation of the First Amendment).

    Liked by 1 person

  69. From here, it looks like the battered and bloodied boxer who just managed to stay on his feet being declared the winner on points by the judges at the end of the bout, despite his opponent(s) having seemed to have landed the most – and most effective – punches. However, that’s just my third-hand impression, not having watched any of it, and having relied on commentary from others.

    Liked by 1 person

  70. Looking at the levels of compensatory and punitive damages I read the jury’s verdict thus:-
    1. We don’t think much of scientific Mann or his claims, but …
    2. But don’t you dare touch our/the narrative, otherwise we will damage you in proportion to your public visibilty.
    Regards, John.

    Liked by 2 people

  71. stewgreen asked about an appeal. A number of twitterati think it should be straightforward to overturn the $1m punitive damages. Eg

    3.5 X 1 = $4 at most, on appeal, in other words. Someone else comments that it should also be cost-free for poor Mr Steyn, because it’s so simple and many law firms will offer to do it pro bono, because of the implications for the US First Amendment. I sure hope that’s right.

    Liked by 1 person

  72. I’m afraid this verdict had an air of inevitability about it. The idea that challenging climate scientists is what bad actors do is already culturally enshrined. Therefore, to find against Mann would be tantamount to finding against society. As representatives of society, I don’t know of any jury that would find against itself.

    Liked by 1 person

  73. Further to my earlier post today, Francis Menton has now posted an update to his commentary.

    There’s a lot of interesting but largely depressing stuff here that some may wish to read. I thought this paragraph interesting:

    ‘ So where does the case go from here? In the first instance, the defendants have made motions for what is called “judgment as a matter of law,” based on Mann’s failure to prove his case. In most cases such motions are pro forma and routinely denied. Here they are quite substantive, for reasons discussed in my prior posts. There is also reason to believe from watching the trial that the judge was appalled by Mann’s conduct in several instances. However, we should recognize that in the milieu where this judge lives and works, he will get nothing but praise if he simply upholds the verdict, whereas if he overturns the verdict he will be vilified’

    I think that last sentence neatly epitomises what’s happened.

    Liked by 3 people

  74. Menton:

    However, we should recognize that in the milieu where this judge lives and works, he will get nothing but praise if he simply upholds the verdict, whereas if he overturns the verdict he will be vilified.

    Absolutely, and that milieu is Washington DC. Two people I respect made this point about the singularity of the location, on Twitter, the second being a lawyer himself.

    Who argued better with this jury pool in mind? Victoria Weatherford, Simberg’s main advocate in the courtroom, was streets ahead of Steyn in my view in this regard. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.

    Liked by 1 person

  75. The sociopathic Zoonati bullies who have actively been threatening, intimidating and harrassing the Lab Leak scientists and journos now have a useful extra weapon in their armoury:

    Liked by 2 people

  76. Matthew Sweet put up a sneery tweet
    and in the replies a couple of people said the judges $1m compensation award is illegal
    cos a rule says it can’t be more than ten times the jury damages
    So they say Steyn will pay $11

    However I fear a costs claim

    America always was a weird place.

    Like

  77. One reply
    “it’s like watching the Klan ride around gloating about how Southern white juries will never convict a good Democrat”

    Like

  79. This from the Guardian was inevitable, I suppose:

    “US climate scientist Michael Mann wins $1m in defamation lawsuit
    Scientist wins award against conservative writers who said his work was ‘fraudulent’ and that he ‘molested and tortured’ data”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/us-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-1m-in-defamation-lawsuit

    …In a statement posted on Mann’s X account, one of his lawyers said: “Today’s verdict vindicates Mike Mann’s good name and reputation. It also is a big victory for truth and scientists everywhere who dedicate their lives answering vital scientific questions impacting human health and the planet.”…

    …“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said.

    By the way, does anyone understand why the case proceeded in Washington DC? Do any of the parties have a connection with DC? Or is it just a case of the plaintiff forum-shopping for a favourable jurisdiction?

    Liked by 2 people

  80. Stew:

    in the replies a couple of people said the judges $1m compensation award is illegal
    cos a rule says it can’t be more than ten times the jury damages
    So they say Steyn will pay $11

    It wasn’t the judge, it was the jury.

    I don’t think a $1m compensation award is ‘illegal’ but, based on the guidelines of the Supreme Court, it is extremely likely to be reduced on appeal to 4x $1 or at most 10x $1.

    Like

  81. So, never mind the Hockey Stick, who called out ‘Proximal Origin’ as a fraud? Who is going to call it now? Expect the Zoo Crew to be coming for you. How very convenient.

    Like

  82. Jaime: inevitable. But such bullying won’t work everywhere. Mann is a particularly central and disgusting enforcer of one area of faux ‘science’ – at least as climate has become since 2001. As recognised by this old friend of this blog, whose main concern has been getting the stats right for Covid.

    Liked by 2 people

  83. Mark:

    By the way, does anyone understand why the case proceeded in Washington DC? Do any of the parties have a connection with DC? Or is it just a case of the plaintiff forum-shopping for a favourable jurisdiction?

    I gather it’s a long story. And that’s the sum total of my understanding. Fair question.

    Like

  84. A well expressed explanation of what really happened in DC:

    False Equivalence
    Making Sense of Michael Mann’s Resounding Defamation Victory
    (Roger Pielke Jr.)

    An extract:

    There is no equivalence here between the “renowned” Michael Mann and the “right-wing trolls” who deny climate science and support Donald Trump. The case, at least in this particular venue, was simply unwinnable no matter what cases were put on by the prosecution and the defense. Mann simply had to show up.

    The fact that the jury awarded him only $2 in actual damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages (send a message!) supports this interpretation — The defense won on merits, and Mann won on the framing and the politics.

    https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence?mc_cid=3ade45c9b3&mc_eid=4961da7cb1

    Liked by 2 people

  86. Tweets today seem to say that Steyn intends to take it to the Supreme court
    Others point out that will cost a heap
    Steyn does have a new article up

    I think people put too much faith in courts , the establishment have always cheated.

    When I was a student a friend said that in his area an old lady got a big offer for her building, and her lawyer told her to say the young tenants hadn’t paid the rent. Then in court the judge just accepted that lie and ignored their protests that of course they ha paid and evidence of their cheques.

    Like

  87. Stewgreen,

    I’m afraid your anecdotal tale isn’t evidence (let alone proof) of anything.

    In my experience (as a lawyer) the Courts, in the UK, at least, have usually been very good. There are strict rules about the admissibility of evidence, and I find it highly improbable that a Judge would ignore hard factual evidence in favour of an unevidenced verbal claim.

    Of course, no system is perfect, and I have encountered an occasional Judge who IMO should not have been on the bench, whether because of a blatant display of bias or downright incompetence. Those case, however, were a tiny minority, and generally I had confidence that when I went to Court I and my clients would receive a fair hearing. When I lost (happily a rare event) I generally felt that I had had a fair crack of the whip, and moved on. On those few occasions where I felt the Court (actually, usually an Employment Tribunal) had got it wrong, I successfully appealed. By and large the system does work as it should (in the UK, at least).

    The US system baffles me, however. In the Mann case recently, the Judge seems to have behaved impeccably, and the problem appears to have been with the jury. It’s a shame the trial was about issues that are so politicised. In the UK I have only ever sat on a jury once, and I was very impressed with how seriously the other jury members took their responsibilities.

    Like

  88. “How Things Stand”

    https://www.steynonline.com/14091/how-things-stand

    …What happens now? Well, in the next few weeks, there will be certain “renewed” motions from defendants that one is obliged to do, although they are highly unlikely to find favor with Judge Irving. After that, the case will be appealed by all parties – loser Steyn because he wants the decision overturned, and winner Mann because he wants the original corporate defendants, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, put back in the dock. (Irving, the “fifth trial judge”, dismissed them from the case a couple of years back.)

    The DC Court of Appeals, being the way it is, is likely to accede to Mann’s wishes, but not Steyn’s. How long that will take is hard to say, but, given the length of the last merely “interlocutory” appeal, it’s unlikely to be quick. At that point, Mark will go to the US Supreme Court. A minimum of four out of nine judges is required to grant a writ of certiorari and hear the case….

    …As it stands, a record-setting million-to-one ratio of punitive to compensatory damages on a matter of public policy is the biggest setback for the First Amendment in over half-a-century. So Steyn cannot accept this verdict, and will push on to the Supreme Court….

    Liked by 1 person

  89. Mark that court case would have been in 1982
    but these days there is mass evidence of two tier justice
    eg the way that judge let off the Hamas parachute badge protesters on Monday
    when his other punishments have been harsh.

    Stitch up seems a common practice against people who dare to challenge libmob

    Like

  90. Stewgreen,

    I was talking of my experience regarding the civil Courts. Happily, I have little experience of criminal Courts. Based on the news reports, rather than on first-hand knowledge (therefore caution is required), I can’t help also having a suspicion that defendants are more likely to be found not guilty (or to get a lesser sentence if they are found guilty), if they have the “correct” political motivation for their actions.

    Like

  91. Mark You applied the “anecdote is not evidence” rule
    yet it doesn’t apply
    I wasn’t attempting to give EVIDENCE
    My good friend told me the story at the time cos it shocked his previous belief that UK courts are honest

    Like


  93. Yesterday Mann and one of his several lawyers had a front page opinion in the New York Times [International edition]. A couple of excerpts:

    We hope this sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences.

    And

    It is in the context of this broader war on science that our recent victory may have wider implications. It has drawn a line in the sand. Scientists now know that they can respond to attacks by suing for defamation.

    Publishing peer-reviewed articles is no defence to sceptics’ attacks, but “when scientists and lawyers join forces, disinformation can more readily be defeated.”

    …the machinery of disinformation, waged in part by the fossil fuel industry, continues to seed doubt, divert attention, and delay action.

    The authors end by saying that clean energy is great, but too many Americans do not accept basic scientific facts. “Voters should keep this in mind when they go to the polls later this year.”

    (Or vote by post. Or is that a denialist meme?)

    PS. Bonus point for spotting the falsehood in the image…

    Liked by 1 person

  94. I’ll go with “the chemistry of the ocean is becoming dangerously acidic.”

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.