Mark Steyn Moves to Endgame in Legal Battle with Michael Mann

Embarrassment awaits Michael Mann.
Michael Mann vs. Journalism

National Review
https://www.nationalreview.com › 2024/01 › michael-...


2 days ago — The test of any law is whether it attaches to those who ruffle feathers. Michael Mann is a darling of fashionable opinion. Mark Steyn is not.

 

He never suffered from the alleged defamation as he is still employed, publish books and papers, gets a lot of media coverage of his opinions and made a lot of money.

Where is his loss?

 

Indeed.
Mann's real problems will begin when he has to testify under oath.

 

Here's an opportunity.
Watch the Mann-Steyn Trial Live
Anthony Watts
Michael Mann vs Mark Steyn, live from court.

 

The Curry-Mann relationship is, shall we say, frosty. I'm sure Judith is enjoying this.

Mann vs Steyn and Simberg discussion thread
Posted on January 19, 2024 by curryja | 6 comments
by Judith Curry

After 12 years, Mann’s lawsuit is finally being tried before a jury in Washington DC

Continue reading →

 

Michael Mann can no longer hide.
Men at War – Mark Steyn Must Win (Part 1)

January 21, 2024 By jennifer


I had been scrolling through Michael Mann’s Twitter account, until Friday when I discovered I was blocked. Blocked even though I was yet to retweet or comment on anything to do with the defamation trial that he has brought against Mark Steyn and … [Read more...]

 

This is a pretty good summary of trial proceedings so far. Short version: It's not going well for Mann.
Some Notes On The Trial Of Mann v. Steyn
January 27, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  Way back in October 2012, climate alarmist and activist Michael Mann brought a libel suit against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg for allegedly defamatory blog posts that the two had written a few months previously.
  
  
• The case has gone through an incredible history of procedural twists and turns since then, a few of which I have covered in prior blog posts, for example here on March 20, 2014, and here on March 26, 2021. The trial finally started on January 16.
  
  
• Probably most readers here are familiar with the case to at least some degree, and many may even be following the trial. (The court has a live feed available to the public. Follow this link at WattsUpWithThat if you want to tune in during the coming week.). I have watched some substantial chunks of the trial during its first two weeks.
  
  
• So what have they been talking about all that time without ever getting to the Hockey Stick?
  

READ MORE

 

Although this is an important First Amendment case and I'm rooting for Steyn, it is in the DC district and more likely that Mann is awarded 70 trillion dollars in damages than Steyn winning a penny.

 

We shall see.

 

Gotta wonder who the deep-pocketed donors are who finance Mann's lawsuits. Trying to silence dissenting voices on matters of science by bankrupting them with lawsuits has to be one of the most despicable, anti-scientific disgraces I have ever heard of.

 

Oh, come now. It is obvious that Steyn was not accusing Mann of fraud as defined in law, but of scientific "fraud": deceitful manipulation of data and methods to create a false impression. There is no doubt Mann did that. He cherry-picked insensitive temperature "proxies" that did not show the Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, and then when those same proxies also did not show any warming in the 20th century, he removed those data points from his "hockey stick" graph, and substituted instrument data uncorrected for local effects like urbanization. It's a disgrace that his paper was ever accepted for publication.

 

Here's an update. Readers will find the discussion of the Nobel Peace Prize especially entertaining.
Some Notes On The Trial Of Mann v. Steyn
January 27, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  Way back in October 2012, climate alarmist and activist Michael Mann brought a libel suit against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg for allegedly defamatory blog posts that the two had written a few months previously.
  
  
• The case has gone through an incredible history of procedural twists and turns since then, a few of which I have covered in prior blog posts, for example here on March 20, 2014, and here on March 26, 2021. The trial finally started on January 16.
  
  
• Probably most readers here are familiar with the case to at least some degree, and many may even be following the trial. (The court has a live feed available to the public. Follow this link at WattsUpWithThat if you want to tune in during the coming week.). I have watched some substantial chunks of the trial during its first two weeks.
  
  
• So what have they been talking about all that time without ever getting to the Hockey Stick?
  

READ MORE

 

Thanks for that. I laughed out loud when I saw this in the comments: "...Michael 'Piltdown' Mann..."

 

Mann v Steyn et al continues. Mann has tried to show damages, while his lawyers tried to show "actual malice." Mann has rested; defense now up.
Further Notes On Mann v. Steyn: The Plaintiff Rests
January 31, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  The Mann v. Steyn trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is now in the middle of its third week. For more background on the case, see my post from a few days ago here.
  
  
• I have been watching some substantial chunks of the trial on the court’s livestream, although unfortunately several other matters have prevented me from watching the entirety. Today at the lunch break, the plaintiff Michael Mann concluded the presentation of his case. The technical term is that the plaintiff “rested.” So I thought a short update would be timely.
  
  
• Because I haven’t seen the whole thing, I’ll just cover some aspects that I find interesting.
  

READ MORE

 

Then he destroys his claim under oath,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

The view from the other side
https://www.desmog.com/2024/01/30/a...fendants-are-doubling-down-on-climate-denial/

 

Your source can't even get Mann's place of employment correct. He is not at the University of Pennsylvania, a private institution in Philadelphia, but rather at Penn State University, a public institution in State College, Pennsylvania.
Let's wait to get the verdict.

 

Yes let’s - since the defence seems to consist of “other people did it tooo!”

 

This case is really about the First Amendment, not climate science, so I wouldn't expect you to understand.

 

To paraphrase John Paul Jones, the defense has not yet begun to fight.
Trial Of Mann v. Steyn, Part III: More On Damages; Simberg And Steyn's First Witness
February 02, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  Readers seem to be enjoying my posts on the Mann v. Steyn trial, so I’m going to continue with one more today.
  
  
• Meanwhile, the court does not hold trials on Fridays, so the proceeding has recessed for the weekend, to resume Monday morning.
  
  
• It’s likely that the trial will get very interesting next week, as the defendants present the heart of their case and as things wrap up. In the interim, I’ll provide some comments on the events yesterday, which was the 11th day of the trial.
  

READ MORE

". . . Yesterday, in connection with Mann resting his case, Steyn filed with the court something called a “Motion for Sanctions for Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct” against Mann, addressing many issues about the claimed damages and Mann’s proof of same. Steyn made a copy of that document available via a link on his website. The document gives much history of the subject of Mann’s damages claim in the case, including events that occurred at parts of the trial that have not been broadcast publicly. The document, only 11 pages long, makes for very entertaining reading if you have the time. . . . .

Meanwhile, in the part of the trial actually shown to the viewers at home, the main show on Thursday was the testimony of the defense expert witness Abraham Wyner, Professor of Statistics at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. . . . . There was much technical detail in the presentation; however, the gist was that the uncertainties inherent in the data were far greater than what Mann had presented. As a result, Wyner testified, the error range shown on Mann’s Hockey Stick graphs from several papers was much too narrow. And thus, contrary to Mann’s graph, it was not possible to say from the data that time periods hundreds of years ago definitively were cooler than the present. . . ."

 

Dr. Mann failed to show that he lost grants (doesn't list any) and since he hasn't showed that he lost anything since 2012 as he is still employed by Penn State who hired him in 2005 which is almost 19 years running, published a number of books since 2012, gets many fawning interviews and still able to publish papers, has his own media accounts that stays active there seems to be ZERO evidence he was defamed and is getting full funding support for his lawsuits expenses and additional money given thus never has want for money.

There is no sign of injury at all.

 

Unfortunately, if there were, truth is no longer considered an absolute defense in a libel action in the USA.

 

Testimony highlights Mann's disgusting behavior.
Quote of the Week: Manntastic Claims
Anthony Watts
I am not a lawyer, but I assumed in covering a defamation trial I might be exposed to something resembling evidence of defamation. How naïve I was.

The following literally had to be stated and asked in Court today:

Dr. Judith Curry: Michael Mann knew who I was. My name appeared in one of the ClimateGate emails that Mann sent. He knew who I was. I mean, when this story was changed or altered to portray me as a graduate student, to my mind, the implication that I was, you know, just a woman sleeping my way to the top. And if you’re a professional woman, this is about the worst thing that anyone can say about you. It discredits your accomplishments and it gives people permission to ignore you.

Defense Counsel: Dr. Curry, did you ever get any of your tenured faculty positions or department chairs or awards or publications or anything else because you slept with somebody?

Dr. Judith Curry: No.

 

The Defense brought their big hammer.
Trial Of Mann v. Steyn, Part IV: The Defense Case
February 06, 2024/ Francis Menton

• 
  The trial of Michael Mann versus Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg is nearing its conclusion in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
  
  
• The last two days, Monday and Tuesday, have seen the presentation of the guts of the defense case. These were the main witnesses:
  
  
• Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, authors of a series of papers in the early 2000s that dissected Mann’s work and discovered several serious flaws;
  
  
• two members of the Penn State “Inquiry” Committee, that investigated Mann after the release of the ClimateGate emails in late 2009, and made no adverse finding against Mann (Mann has claimed that he was “exonerated”);
  
  
• and Eugene Wahl, a climate scientist and collaborator of Mann who had deleted certain emails that were subject to FOIA requests after Mann forwarded him a request to do so.
  

READ MORE

 

Mann is a science denier. Straight up. I exposed some of it here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1074468998/

Dude thinks his unsubstantiated opinions trump evidence produced through application of the scientific method. Dude gets a collective Nobel Prize for his work with IPCC and then after bragging about it he outright rejects evidence in the reports that conflicts with his opinions and biases.

He’s a tool.