Mann vs. Steyn, the Trial of the Century

[John Reece]

Mann vs. Steyn, the Trial of the Century

Mark Steyn's latest allusion to the pending litigation is here.

[John Reece]

Update re Mann vs. Steyn

Mark's latest update is here.

[John Reece]

About Mark Steyn

As we wait for further developments in the course of the lawsuit as it is processed through the District of Columbia court system, Mark Steyn's bio as presented at Wikipedia is here.

[John Reece]

A Related Court Case

This case is related to the Mann vs. Steyn case in that Mann is a plaintiff in both cases.

Michael Mann’s ‘damages’ over FOIA emails? A piddling $250

Posted on July 15, 2014 by Anthony Watts

From ‘amazing tales of the vexatious’. Climate Change Dispatch writes:

[tabibito]

The defendants would seem to have been damnably stupid in the way they worded things. It just isn't good for one's health to accuse prominent people of malfeasance when you don't have hard evidence to back the allegation.
No law suit would have been possible if the defendants had said "In our opinion", "seemingly" or some such.

[John Reece]

Mark Steyn's latest update is here.

[John Reece]

A Note

A note excerpted from the the weekly report from Mark Steyn's webmaster:

Tuesday was a grim milestone for Steyn ― the second anniversary of the 270-word blog post which fake Nobel Laureate Michael E Mann decided to sue him over. For those who've missed the first year-and-three-quarters of legal folderol, we provided a précis of the story so far. Mark continues to press to get this thing to trial and Mann on the witness stand, but in the DC Superior Court the wheels of justice barely grind at all. Thanks for continuing to support his campaign for free speech against the climate mullahs via the Steyn store.

[John Reece]

Mann vs. Steyn, the Trial of the Century

Here is Mark's latest online allusion to the pending court case:

Complaining about Insufficient Complaints

by Mark Steyn

July 31, 2014

In my SteynPost on Michael Mann's Clime Syndicate and the latest beneficiary of their offers you can't refuse, I mentioned my previous legal battles with Canada's "human rights" regime over Section 13. Brian Storseth's private member's bill took an eternity to crawl through Parliament all the way through to Royal Assent, but it got there in the end and Section 13 formally bit the dust just last month. By then, I wasn't in the mood for celebrating, but I'm glad to see someone's been popping the champagne corks at this belated but significant victory.

The full post is here.

[John Reece]

Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread

From Climate, Etc.

Judith Curry is hosting a discussion thread re Mann vs. Steyn et al.

Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread

Posted on August 14, 2014 | 238 comments

by Judith Curry

Some interesting developments during the past week.

Mark Steyn's latest fulsome update on his own website is titled My New Best Friends.

[John Reece]

EPA on Mann's "Fraud" Invective

From Climate Audit

EPA on Mann’s “Fraud” Invective[/b]

Michael Mann, now feigning sensitivity towards Mark Steyn’s use of the word “fraudulent”, used identical language in the Climategate emails against critics without the slightest compunction. Mann’s hypocrisy has been widely noted. [...]

[John Reece]

Mann vs Steyn: the Trial of the Century

Mark Steyn's latest allusions to the litigation are here.

[John Reece]

Mann and the Oxburgh Panel

From Climate Audit:

Mann and the Oxburgh Panel

Feb. 17, 2014

By Steve McIntyre

Introduction [emphasis added]:

The Mann libel case has been attracting increasing commentary, including from people outside the climate community. Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted an fairly presented”. Mann also represented that these investigations were widely covered in international and national media and thus known to Steyn and the other defendants.

In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results. These comments were widely reported in international media, later covered in a CEI article that, in turn, was reported by National Review. Moreover, information obtained from FOI in the UK a couple of years ago shows that Mann objected vehemently to criticism from Oxburgh panelist, which he characterized as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought a public apology.

[snip the body of the article]

Excerpt (emphasis added)

Conclusion

As noted at the start, Mann’s pleadings assert that he was “investigated” by multiple investigations and that all of the investigations (i.e. including Oxburgh) exonerated him of scientific misconduct, fraud, academic fraud, data falsification, statistical manipulation, manipulation of data and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted and fairly presented” and that these findings were announced and reported in “international and national media” of which the defendants were aware.

However, it is evident that the Oxburgh panel did not interview Mann or carry out any of the steps necessary to conduct an investigation of Mann’s work and that they did not provide the wide-ranging “exoneration” asserted in Mann’s pleadings. Furthermore, public statements by members of the Oxburgh panel on Mann’s work were highly critical and, far from indicating the widespread exoneration claimed by Mann, suggested the opposite. Indeed, Mann himself at the time perceived these opinions as damaging to himself, as he dismissed Hand’s as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought an apology from Hand.

[One Bad Pig]

If the Oxburgh panel did not carry out any of the steps necessary to conduct an investigation of Mann's work, then I suppose it would not be a huge stretch to say that it is not included in the investigations referred to by Mann.

[John Reece]

If the Oxburgh panel did not carry out any of the steps necessary to conduct an investigation of Mann's work, then I suppose it would not be a huge stretch to say that it is not included in the investigations referred to by Mann.

A thought provoking point that calls for more research on my part.

I have not been able to find any specific reference to the Oxburgh panel in the legal COMPLAINT.

See The Exoneration of Dr. Mann, paragraph 21, which is very cleverly worded by attorneys for Mann to give the impression that Mann was personally exonerated by all the many investigations without actually stating that to be so.

However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results.

The comments of David Hand, Oxburgh panelist ― at the Oxburgh panel press conference, presuppose that, indeed, Mann's work was considered in the investigation by the Oxburgh panel.

ETA: As indicated in the link above, David Hand was an eminent statistician, which ― if I be not mistaken ― is the scientific discipline most essential for scientific testing of Mann's work, and the one most likely to discover flaws in said work: "inappropriate" statistics and "exaggerated" results.

See the article in The Washington Post.

[John Reece]

Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1

From Climate Audit

Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1

By Steve McIntyre

In my most recent post, I showed that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Oxburgh inquiry had no more validity than Mann’s claim to have won a Nobel prize. In today’s post, I’ll continue my series on the “investigations” by showing that Mann’s claim to have been “exonerated” by the Muir Russell inquiry is equally invalid.

Excerpt:

Conclusion

Contrary to the claims in Mann’s complaint and Reply Memorandum, neither the Oxburgh panel nor the Muir Russell inquiries “exonerated” Mann himself. As clearly stated by National Review, the Muir Russell inquiry did not “offer any opinion on Mann, who was not a part of CRU, but merely a collaborator with some of its scientists”. In future posts, I’ll show that other Mann claims of “exoneration” are also untrue.