• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:91]

Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Stey...

Threegoofs said:
It's irrelevant if you argue it or not.

Having ones scientific work independently verified by more advanced methods is pretty much the standard for solid scientific work, whether you think so or not!
Click to expand...

Whatever you say.:lamo
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

The old proverb, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" certainly appears to apply in this instance.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Somerville said:
The old proverb, "A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" certainly appears to apply in this instance.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Steyn is acting as his own attorney?:peace
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Jack Hays said:
What makes you think Steyn is acting as his own attorney?:peace
Click to expand...

So you didn't read the PDF you linked to?

more on the subject - Judge grants Steyn's attorneys request to withdraw from case

JANUARY 24, 2014
MANN V. STEYN: A status report. I am disturbed to hear that Steyn is acting as his own lawyer. He’s a very smart guy, but that wouldn’t be a good idea even if he were a lawyer himself, which he is not.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

and more, this time from Steyn himself

Steyn told ThinkProgress via email that he felt his lawyers should have pushed back harder against the case's "procedural fiasco," which was related to their firing.

"Obviously, I'm giving serious thought to future legal strategy," he said, "and I certainly don't rule out hiring someone with a law degree downloaded from an online diploma mill in Kazakhstan."
Click to expand...

Hmm. I've been reading me for a long time and sometimes even I don't know when I'm joking.
Click to expand...

I would say that Mr Steyn's ego could be costing him a lot of money in the near future.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

So his attorney withdrew from the case. Does that mean he isn't getting a different one?
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Somerville said:
Why don't you read Steyn's own words? The link in post #282 is to his site.
Click to expand...

It's silly to read the actual stories when theWUWT headlines are so snarky...errr....accurate.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Somerville said:
and more, this time from Steyn himself



I would say that Mr Steyn's ego could be costing him a lot of money in the near future.
Click to expand...

My guess would be that Steyn will prevail in court, but I don't predict verdicts.

[h=2]Michael Mann’s legal case caught in a quote fabrication fib[/h] Posted on February 22, 2014 by Anthony Watts
UPDATE: it seems the language was lifted from a “Skeptical Science” web page, see below.
Steve McIntyre had a busy day yesterday. While yesterday there was an incorrect story called “Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse“ being pushed by John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International (aka PSI and The Slayers) claiming Dr. Tim Ball had defeated Mann’s lawsuit, Ball confirms through communications with McIntyre yesterday that while stalled, Mann’s lawsuit is still very much on. Also, for those who don’t know, we’ve heard that Dr. Mann’s legal bills are being paid by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where we’ve been told there are some deep green pockets contributing, so he isn’t facing bankruptcy, at least not yet.
I find the name a bit of a misnomer, since AFAIK, no climate skeptic scientists are suing alarmist climate scientists, We have only Dr. Mann’s and Dr. Weaver’s lawsuit (also against Tim Ball). Perhaps it should be named the Climate Science Legal Offense Fund.
In a parallel Mann legal arena, Steve McIntyre now shows that in his legal reply to the NRO/Steyn lawsuit, Dr. Mann or his attorneys altered a quote from the Muir Russell inquiry that didn’t exist. Add this to the fake “Nobel Laureate” claim in Mann’s original lawsuit (a claim which he removed without notice), and a pattern begins to emerge that might not be looked on too kindly by a presiding judge.
He writes: Continue reading →:peace
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Threegoofs said:
It's silly to read the actual stories when theWUWT headlines are so snarky...errr....accurate.
Click to expand...

[h=2]Mann and the Muir Russell Inquiry #1[/h] Feb 21, 2014 – 2:28 PM
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.
In their memoranda supporting their original motions to dismiss, both National Review and CEI had observed (correctly) that the Muir Russell panel had limited their findings to “CRU scientists” and contested Mann’s assertion that the Muir Russell panel had made any findings regarding Mann himself, let alone “exonerated” him.
In Mann’s Reply Memorandum, he vociferously rejected the (correct) assertion that the Muir Russell had not exonerated Mann himself, describing such assertion as merely an attempt to “obfuscate and misrepresent”. Mann supported this bluster with an apparent quotation from the Muir Russell report, but the phrase within the quotation marks does not actually occur within the Muir Russell report. As shown below, Mann and/or his lawyers subtly altered the quotation to more supportive language. Read More »
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Threegoofs said:
It's silly to read the actual stories when theWUWT headlines are so snarky...errr....accurate.
Click to expand...

[h=2]SKS and Mann’s Doctored Quote[/h] Feb 22, 2014 – 2:15 PM
Shub Niggurath has spotted the probable source of the doctored quotation in the Mann pleadings (h/t Mosher). Shub located the doctored phrase at Skeptical Science here. Check out Shub’s post.
michael-mann-scientists-rigor.gif

The SKS webpage lists the same nine committees as listed in paragraph 21 of Mann’s pleadings.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

More SKS in the Mann Pleadings « Climate Audit

"I am in the process of writing a post showing that Mann’s claim that he had personally been exonerated by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (report here) of a wide range of counts was also untrue. It’s so untrue that it’s hard to even make an interesting post of it.
In the process of writing the post, I noticed the following quotation from Mann’s Reply Memorandum, which has some extra interest given the evidence that the doctored quotation in Mann’s pleadings came from the SKS blog, rather than original documents. Mann and/or Cozen O’Connor wrote:
In March 2010, the United Kingdom’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the skeptics’ criticisms of the CRU were misplaced, and that its actions “were in line with common practice in the climate science community.”
The first sentence is completely untrue: the Committee Report said nothing of the sort. The assertion that “criticisms of the CRU were misplaced” is neither made nor supported in the Committee Report. This phrase originated instead with SKS, who, once again, altered the language, though, in this case, not going so far as to fabricate a quotation. . . .":peace
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Legal action-by-blog is about as effective as science-by-blog.

It's for those who don't understand the real thing.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Threegoofs said:
Legal action-by-blog is about as effective as science-by-blog.

It's for those who don't understand the real thing.
Click to expand...

McIntyre, especially, knows quite a bit about it. Every example of falsity in Mann's public claims is ammunition for Steyn. McIntyre regards Mann as a liar and intends to show that.:peace
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Mann's reputation is best kept if he folds his hand.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Jack Hays said:
McIntyre, especially, knows quite a bit about it. Every example of falsity in Mann's public claims is ammunition for Steyn. McIntyre regards Mann as a liar and intends to show that.:peace
Click to expand...

He had his chance and failed in the literature.

Mann's work has been upheld in the scientific literature for over a decade. As I've clearly outlined, his original seminal work in 98 is still cited as the first of a long line of confirmatory studies in paleoclimate.

But I'm sure your blogs disagree.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Lord of Planar said:
So his attorney withdrew from the case. Does that mean he isn't getting a different one?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah... Here's the story on that.



"Lawyers depart after Mark Steyn insults the judge in his defamation lawsuit on-air.

Weisberg’s order is just the latest in a string of setbacks, which have left the climate-change skeptics’ case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing the National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn’s counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop the National Review as a client.
The lawyers’ withdrawal came shortly after Steyn—a prominent conservative pundit, who regularly fills in as host of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show—publicly attacked the former judge in the case, Natalia Combs Greene, accusing her of “stupidity” and “staggering” incompetence. Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams, suspects this is no coincidence. “Any lawyer would be taken aback if their client said such things about the judge,” he says. “That may well be why Steptoe withdrew.”
Steyn’s manager, Melissa Howes, acknowledged that his commentary “did not go over well with the judge.” But Steyn maintains it was his decision to part ways with his attorneys."
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Threegoofs said:
Oh yeah... Here's the story on that.



"Lawyers depart after Mark Steyn insults the judge in his defamation lawsuit on-air.

Weisberg’s order is just the latest in a string of setbacks, which have left the climate-change skeptics’ case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing the National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn’s counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop the National Review as a client.
The lawyers’ withdrawal came shortly after Steyn—a prominent conservative pundit, who regularly fills in as host of Rush Limbaugh’s radio show—publicly attacked the former judge in the case, Natalia Combs Greene, accusing her of “stupidity” and “staggering” incompetence. Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams, suspects this is no coincidence. “Any lawyer would be taken aback if their client said such things about the judge,” he says. “That may well be why Steptoe withdrew.”
Steyn’s manager, Melissa Howes, acknowledged that his commentary “did not go over well with the judge.” But Steyn maintains it was his decision to part ways with his attorneys."
Click to expand...
We all love "unnamed" sources, don't we...

Par for the left field.
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

While I was looking for that, I found this story in The Week, which has this understated paragraph about Steyn I found enlightening:

"Hence the career and reckless writings of Mark Steyn, a man of considerable polemical talent who specializes in whipping right-wing readers into a froth of know-nothing indignation. That he decided to impugn a scientist's research and reputation on the basis of little more than convictions rooted in the magazine's ideological agenda isn't surprising at all."


http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=255756
 
Re: Michael Mann seems poised to win his defamation suit against NR and Mark Steyn[W:

Lord of Planar said:
"According to two sources with inside knowledge"
Click to expand...

That's kind of a sidelight to the story...and it should be obvious pretty soon if the NR shows up in court with different counsel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom