Will Steyn now Stick it the O’Sullivan Way to Climate Fraudster Michael Mann?
Good news! As I predicted four years ago, alarmist climate scientist, Michael Mann’s gambit of using the courts to silence debate about his faked “hockey stick” graph is backfiring spectacularly. 17 mainstream media outlets now agree Mann should put up or shut up.
Back in April 2010 I prophetically penned, “Is Michael Mann Seriously Off his Head?” detailing the legal pitfalls the odious Professor Mann faced if he sued anyone for “defaming” him. Back then I pointed out that:
“If Mann takes a punt in the courts then his meta data and source codes used in his graphs are germane. The rules of discovery are clear; the respondents will be entitled to full disclosure of any and all evidence pertaining to the issues so that the trier of fact may determine the credibility of the allegations.”
I recently pointed out the fatal technical legal flaw in Mann’s case against Dr Tim Ball (skeptic climatologist). Mark Steyn (the writer also being sued by the litigious Mann), the mainstream press and others are playing catch up and cottoning on to the inescapable legal realities. Steyn, like Ball, has been sued for daring to question why any scientist who claims his work proves the planet is in great danger, won’t show us his proof.
Four years ago I brazenly challenged Mann to do his worst when I wrote:
“Unless the dodgy Penn. State professor divulges his computer codes that underpin his junk science no civil court will entertain him. Barking out his toothless threats scares no one. This fraudster is now a figure of ridicule and is set to go down in history as one of science’s worst abominations. I’ll call Mann a climate crook all day long: let him sue me, I’m game.”
Needless to say, four years on and I’ve not been sued, nor do I expect to be.
And now Mark Steyn has got up to speed by quoting the analysis of this lawyer (you can read ‘O’Sullivan’ in place of ‘Steyn’ to see where I’ve been coming from for 4 years):
“Defamation per se—Essential Factual Elements (Public Officer/Figure and Limited Public Figure)
Michael Mann claims that Mark Steyn harmed him by making the following statement: “Michael Mann’s hockey stick is fraudulent.”
To establish this claim, Michael Mann must prove that all of the following are more likely true than not true:
That Mark Steyn made the statement to a person other than Michael Mann;
That this person reasonably understood that the statement was about Michael Mann;
That this person reasonably understood the statement to mean that Michael Mann had used falsified or improperly selected data and computer programs in creating his hockey stick graph;
In addition, Michael Mann must prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mark Steyn knew the statement was false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statement.
So Michael Mann has a heavy burden to shoulder in order to win. He (not Mark Steyn) has the burden of proving that the statements are false AND he has to prove that Mark Steyn, at the time Steyn made the statements, believed them to be false or entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.”
Steyn (a Canadian resident in the U.S.) in his article, ‘Defaming for Beginners’ (March 17, 2014) then correctly adduces that the American legal system has been cynically played by Mann, lamenting, “the leisurely procedural torture of US “justice” would count as cruel and unusual punishment in most other systems.”
This is precisely why Mann’s ill-judged foray into the Canadian legal system to sue Dr Ball in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver, will prove to be the biggest error. I keep saying this with great confidence because there’s no way on earth Mann is going to reveal his “secret science” willingly – and the BC courts don’t allow litigants to snub discovery rules and keep key evidence hidden. Mann’s only hope is that Ball will walk away when Mann’s backer (David Suzuki) offers Ball a large suitcase full of cash. But then, will Ball bite?
Finally, the mainstream media has cottoned on to the wider and profound implications of Mann’s abuse of process. Not only has the Penn. State professor cynically been hiding his graph’s tortured r^2 regression numbers since 1998, but he’s now gotten his cronies at Columbia Journalism Review (March 17, 2014) to back his shameless ploy to subvert freedom of information laws (FOIA) and preserve the crumbling credibility of the “science” of man-made global warming.
Anthony Watts calls it correctly with his latest post on the matter, ‘Wow, even MSM reporters want to see Michael Mann’s UVa emails now,’ (March 17, 2014). Watts has been guided by astute analysis by attorney, Chris Horner, of the amicus brief filed by 17 top mainstream media outlets opposing Mann’s efforts to keep his data hidden. Joy of joys, the MSM has finally understood what a snivelling little crook Mann actually is. WUWT reports:
“Basically what has happened is that journalists are afraid that if Mann wins, it will set a legal precedent that will be used to restrict the ability of the press in future issues where work products and emails discussing research are needed for journalist investigations, but will be made off limits. So, they are going to throw Mann under the bus to keep their FOIA ability intact.”
Pass the popcorn!
Trackback from your site.