Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Merry Christmas, Mr Steyn

Oh the NAS report whose Chairman Gerry North said in a presentation on the report that it is more of a "bow" than a hockey stick and reported that they “didn’t do any research”, just “took a look at papers”, and got 12 people around the table and just kind of winged it. That one you mean?

Dec 24, 2016 at 6:29 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

For the avoidance of doubt Mark Steyn was not one of the appellants in the recent appeal.

"DC Circuit shoots down Mark Steyn and National Review’s SLAPP motion, climate scientist’s libel case can go to trial

Er, no. It wasn’t my motion. Nothing to do with me. In fact, I objected to it. As I said above, I thought the appeal was a waste of time, and filed a motion to proceed to trial three years ago. Mann filed a motion objecting to that, a position the judge found “ironic“."

Ironic indeed.

Dec 24, 2016 at 10:34 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Sounds like a good, if informal, description of the review they were charged with.

The Mann et al., results were not ‘wrong’ and the science was not ‘bad’. They simply made choices in their analysis which were not precisely the ones we (in hindsight) might have made. It turns out that their choices led them to essentially the right answer (at least as compared with later studies which used perhaps better choices).

From <>

Dec 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

That is true, geronimo. It is also true that in considering the appeals the Court found that Mann had made a convincing legal case "because the evidence he has presented is legally sufficient to support findings by the fact-finder that statements in Mr. Simberg’s and Mr. Steyn’s articles were defamatory, were published by appellants to a third party without privilege, and were made with actual malice."

Hardly good news for the defendent.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

The method was wrong but the answer was correct!!

When at school/college you have to show your working to demonstrate that you know how you obtained your answer.

Here, in research, you are trying to determine if a trend exists and what that trend may be.

There is no 'right' answer! it depends upon your methods and assumptions used working your methods.

To say you did it the wrong way or made errors in your methods, but got the 'right' answer is a nonsense.

How does anyone know what the 'right' answer is if this work is 'groundbreaking'?

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterSteve Richards

PC , like most extremist kooks, seems to think that any criticism of his kooky obsession is by definition wrong. And that any effort to silence what is wrong is good. I despise the convoluted contra-legal pretense of a ruling because it is not only directly counter to the laws on slander/libel in America. More importantly, Mann's harassment of Steyn opens the way, to manipulate the Courts into shutting down vigoroys criticism of nearly everything or anyone on any topic that intellectually challenged judges might agree to. No sane reasonable person, after reading what Steyn wrote could possibly conclude that Steyn accused Mann of being a pedophile. His metaphor was an indictment of academia self dealing and corruption. And Steyn's criticism of Mann is no worse or harsher than what Mann has received hundreds of times before and sense. The only distinctive aspect of Steyn's opinion piece is that he used a simile that had an inflammatory idea
But Steyn was topical, timely and clear. It takes a great deal of irrational extremism or intellectual dishonesty to come to different conclusion. Which brings us back to climate extremist kooks, of course. Why do you think that not a single pro:free speech organization backs Mann? Why didn't Mann's peers rally to him? This debacle by the Courts is due directly by the need of climate kooks to avoid actual debate and their need to control everything that does not support their despotic desires to impose their will on us all.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Phil Clarke, what about the evidence that Mann has deliberately WITHHELD from the Court, by failing to comply with Discovery?

Hardly the action of a man with a clear conscience. Do remember, this case was not about Steyn., and nobody has been found guilty or innocent.

Preselecting evidence to achieve the predetermined conclusion has always been the way of Climate Scientists. Which proves it is not science, and that is what Mann is deliberately trying to avoid being proved in Law.

Phil Clarke and Mann are providing the evidence to support the unreliability of climate scientists, and why Trump is right to consider everything about climate science untrustworthy, and unfit for further public funding.

No one will miss it, and the World and humanity will survive better without it.

Dec 24, 2016 at 1:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil C: "I have no special knowledge of Dr Mann's motivations, nor any burning desire to speculate." The first part of the statement is no doubt unimpeachable, the second part displays a strange lack of curiosity from someone who is so interested in all aspects of climate alarmism, and who is often keen to speculate on - or at least call out - the motivations of leading climate sceptics.

Why would that be? Afraid it might lead to an inconvenient truth?

I struggle with US Courts and their procedures, but I also struggle to understand how he can have managed to avoid - apparently, from what I have seen reported - complying with a Court order for discovery/disclosure for so long. I would expect a defamation claimant confident in their case to want to race to trial in order to be vindicated and obtain damages as soon as possible. The bizarre thing about the case against Steyn is that Steyn says he desparetely wants to get to trial, and Mann - apparently - doesn't. But as Steyn observes, he doesn't have Mann's financial resources, and for Steyn, the Court process is punishment in itself.

Dec 24, 2016 at 8:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

"Hardly good news for the defendant." In the absence of a defence? And without the Mann providing discovery?

I don't know what Steyn's defence will be, but I do know that he is anxious to get to court to give it and Mann isn't anxious to get to court to clear his name. Why would that be d'ye think?

Dec 24, 2016 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

geronimo, here are 50 further reasons for Steyn to have a Merry Christmas

Those who followed Mann, are probably feeling like unwanted turkeys this Christmas.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:02 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie


Under US law all Mann has to show is that the accusation of fraud was made. The onus is on Steyn to show that, at the time he wrote the piece, he had reasonable evidence that Mann's work was fraudulent. That would constitute a defence, which Steyn should be able to substantiate by his own discovery.

If Steyn has such a defence, his best tactic is to go directly into court and make his defence.

Since Steyn has gone to great lengths to avoid going into court, it is a reasonable assumption that no defence is possible and Steyn knows he will lose.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Golf Charlie

The question is not whether the Hocky Stick is valid. That has been replicated repeatedly.

The question is whether Mann fraudulently misrepresented data.Steyn's piece was an attack on Mann's professional honesty, not on the Hocky Stick itself.

Mann's data and calculations are already in the public domain, so any discovery by Mann would only repeat existing information at great expense to the defence. If Steyn had not fired his defence lawyers, they would be telling him this.

What the judge made clear was his expectation that a jury would find evidence of libel and malice by Steyn, with no evidence of fraud by Mann..

That is why Steyn will lose.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man,

1. Steyn was not in Court, or part of this particular Case

2. Steyn complied with "Discovery", Mann has not.

3. As you have failed to grasp Pt 1 and Pt 2, you are blathering.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Mark Hodgson

Go back over the stages of this case and you will find that it is Steyn who has made repeated attempts to have the case rejected on various legal grounds and has failed repeatedly.

Like yourself, I would expect that, if he were confident of his defence, Steyn would be eager to have his day in court and get it over, much the cheaper course.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, the Hockey Stick has not been replicated honestly. Gergis 2016 proved that.

But then there 50 other reasons:

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

Check your law. In a US libel trial discovery takes place during the actual court hearing and it is usually the defendants that shows by their own discovery that they had reasonable grounds for their accusations

Since the case has not yet come to trial, no discoveryhas yet taken place by either side. When the case does start, any demand for discovery by Mann will be looked on with a certain incredulity by the judge.

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

No, Steyn doesn't have to prove Mann committed fraud. Only a moron thinks that is how the law works in the US

Dec 25, 2016 at 12:23 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

"...any demand for discovery by Mann will be looked on with a certain incredulity by the judge."

Dec 24, 2016 at 11:42 PM | Entropic man

EM, would you care to explain that, or seek an explanation from Climate Science's US Legal Experts and post it here?

Dec 25, 2016 at 1:43 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf charlie

Even in the US one cannot publish accusations of fraud and then go fishing.

All Mann has to show in court is that the accusation was made.and published, and that it caused damage.

The main possible defenses against a libel suit are to show that there was no libel, that no damage was caused and/or that the accusation was genuine. Since Steyn's piece was published,and an accusation of fraud against a scientist is generally regarded as damaging, Steyn and his co-defendants have to show that, at the time, they had evidence of fraud.

Since such evidence would have to come from what was already in the public domain, there is no purpose in demanding discovery from Mann. Why would Steyn et all need it?

Dec 25, 2016 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

, keep on dreaming. A fraudulent study doesn't mean criminal fraud was committed. Mann's lack of support from the pro-climate consensus media and academy in the court filings shows they "get it'. Mann's defense of his reputation is likely to go as well as did that of the fictional Dr Kelno.

Dec 25, 2016 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Golf Charlie, hunter

I suggest that you look here at the Legal Encyclopaedia, or here at Wikipedia.

The test for a successful defamation case is that

the defendant:

Published or otherwise broadcast an unprivileged, false statement of fact about the plaintiff;

Caused material harm to the plaintiff by publishing or broadcasting said false statement of fact;

Acted either negligently or with actual malice;

The most recent judgement established

a) that the plaintiff had cleared those hurdles to the judge's satisfaction.

b) that the specific impediment put forward by Simberg and the NR did not apply.

C) That Mann V Steyn et al should proceed to court.

Note also that Mann V Steyn et al is a civil defamation case, with only damages and costs at stake. If Steyn, Rand Simberg and the National Review were on trial for criminal defamation, it would have been brought by a federal or state prosecutor and the price of losing would be a prison sentence.

Mark Hodgson

You are probably the only one here qualified to understand the details. You can download a PDF of the full judgement from the text of this report.

Dec 25, 2016 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic Man, so you still believe in the Hockey Stick. You still believe that Mann did not abuse data to produce it. You still believe it was an honest forecast/projection/prediction of the future. You still believe Mann behaved in an honest manner

Curious that a few months ago, you were saying that climate science has moved on from the Hockey Stick, because you knew it had crashed and burned?

The next US President has decided that the US Government has moved on from climate science. That is politicised science for you.

I hope that proper scientists are not tarnished by Mann's abomination..

Dec 25, 2016 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

Misquoting me again?

MMB98 was a state-of-the-art study of Northern Hemisphere temperatures when it came out in 1998. Honest work? Yes. In hindsight some of the work could have been done better, but that is usually the case when plundering a new technique.There is no evidence that any of it was fiddled.

18 years later the basic Hocky stick pattern has been repeatedly confirmed by other workers using a variety of proxies.MMB98 tends to be referenced as the pioneer of such studies, but we now have more efficient techniques, better data and ensembles such as Marcott et al 2013.

We're it not for deniers like Steyn and yourself trying to make political hay, MMB98 would now be a historical footnote and Mann a respected, but minor academic. Instead you have considerably boosted his fame and made him a campaigning hero among the 97%.

Mann has done this sort of legal challenge five times before. He is currently winning five-nil and ahead on points against the National Review. You would think that the deniers would learn from each others' mistakes.

Dec 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Unlike the other defendants Steyn has counterclaimed, so Mann has to release the discovery or he cannot have his claim tested. If you do not counterclaim then the claimant does not need to release discovery, so Steyn has the advantage as Mann has never released discovery.

Dec 25, 2016 at 4:24 PM | Registered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

We're it not for deniers like Steyn and yourself trying to make political hay, MMB98 would now be a historical footnote and Mann a respected, but minor academic. Instead you have considerably boosted his fame and made him a campaigning hero among the 97%.

Dec 25, 2016 at 1:58 PM | Entropic man

Actually, I did not fabricate the Hockey Stick. I did not plaster it all over the IPCC Report or MSM. I did not fabricate the 97% Consensus either. I admit to have fallen for the Hockey Stick once, but fortunately my science teachers at school taught me to question things. What exactly are you accusing me of denying?

The only way to prove the Hockey Stick, is with dishonesty, as Gergis 2016 demonstrated, and no Climate Scientist has ever admitted wrong doing, let alone seen fit to self correct.

No wonder Trump seems set to dump Climate Science, or at least 97% of it.

Dec 25, 2016 at 5:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie