From Mark Morano, over at Climate Depot:
Mann’s lawyer John B. Williams: “…Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies”
Climate Depot Response: Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature. The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (used to be referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that the “Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”
In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”
Climate Depot has assembled a small sampling of peer-reviewed studies, data and analyses that refute Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature claims of unprecedented 20th century warmth.
That’s just a small sample. Mann will really regret this if he continues to move forward, but his ego may force him to regardless. It is the ultimate in hubris.
[Update a few minutes later]
And here is a report from an alternate universe, in which Mann is not going to get shredded on the stand:
The legal dismemberment of the Denial machine has begun. In a conversation thursday with a very senior scientist, I was updated on a number of actions slowly encircling the Denial industry. Think, – Tobacco lawsuits on stereo steroids, with extra secret sauce.
The “Denial industry.” A “very senior scientist.”
Top. Men.
Hilarious.
[Update a few more minutes later]
Stacy McCain wants in on the hot, hot lawsuit action.
[Another update]
Litigator Maxwell Kennerly thinks that Mann has a case. I think he’s dreaming.
What all of the Mann defenders ignore are the numerous accusations against his hockey stick and methods from within the “climate science” community itself, much of which views him as a preening embarrassment. And when the emails are exposed in court, “fraud” is likely to be one of the kinder terms that will be seen as applicable to him. The warm mongers are going to regret embracing him — it was unnecessary to do so in order to defend their “science,” and seems to have been done largely for emotional, but not rational reasons (it brings to mind the Democrats’ knee-jerk defense of Bill Clinton for his multiple felonies, simply because he was under attack by their perceived enemy).
And in doing so, they will end up doing great damage to their cause.
[Update a while later]
Link to Peter Sinclair’s lunacy was broken. Fixed now.
ROFLMAO… Has never been more appropriate.
Let’s hope this goes all the way. Can we shame some media in the process?
Any chance TWNBC can be dragged into it on Mann’s side? They’ve been using this summer’s heat wave as proof — PROOF!!! — of catastrophic manmade global warming. As has been noted previously, the weather/climate distinction only applies when the weather is cool.
All of this over the hockey stick? It would have been better had the AGW alarmists, or these particular alarmists, just dropped that particular graph and moved on. But they can’t admit that they are fallible and make mistakes like the rest of us humans.
Steyn’s claim isn’t that the hockey stick is a mistake. His claim is that it’s a fraud.
Is he still pushing it as accurate? I still see people still citing the graph as real all over. If he doesn’t stand by it, he didn’t do a very good job telling his devotees.
Jim, if he can’t show his raw data and methodology… then he is a fraud.
His dog ate it, ain’t gonna work.
> Jim, if he can’t show his raw data and methodology… then he is a fraud.
To you, maybe, but not to a court.
Jim plays the goalpost changing game with:
“To you, maybe, but not to a court.”
But your INITIAL statmeent was to castigate Steyn for calling it a fraud:
“Steyn’s claim isn’t that the hockey stick is a mistake. His claim is that it’s a fraud.”
When sufficient evidence is given to support Steyn’s claim – or at least make it plausible, you then change venues to the court.
A common lefty ploy…..for high school lefty debaters…
The “a report from an alternate universe” link is broken.
What all of the Mann defenders ignore are the numerous accusations against his hockey stick and methods from within the “climate science” community itself, much of which views him as a preening embarrassment.
That all seems orthogonal to the legal questions, which are first of all whether the charge of fraud against Mann is an opinion (and thus protected speech), or a provable fact (and thus potentially defamatory). If the court says it’s the latter, wouldn’t the burden be on NR to prove that Mann committed scientific fraud? That’s more difficult than just showing that others disagree with him, or even that his conclusions are wrong.
I’m sure NR is appreciative of the work of McIntyre and McKittrick and Iowahawk(!) showing Mann’s work to be a fraud.
If the court says it’s the latter, wouldn’t the burden be on NR to prove that Mann committed scientific fraud?
Yes, and that’s easily done, even with available data (including both his and others’ emails), but discovery will provide much more.
It’s easy to prove (to a jury, not a bunch of climate science skeptics) that Mann has deliberately committed fraud? Not just made mistakes, or been incompetent, or been wrong, but actually committed fraud?
discovery will provide much more
How do you know what will be provided?
Yes.
You get a hockeystick if you take the same data and put in through Mann’s algorithm upside-down and backwards.
It’s a hockeystick-finder, not a credible temperature reconstruction.
That’s a short, coherent argument. The original usage may well have just been incompetent or wrong. But.
Then the Climategate emails detail the coverup when things go pear-shaped. (Like the top-three proxies all having serious issues, that when corrected properly end up no longer anywhere -near- the top 10.) And there’s a substantial amount of decidedly “non-strictly scientific” behavior in there. Knowing obfuscation.
Just out of curiosity, Jim, would you want Mann to win? Surely you recognize that such a “win” would be a double edged sword, which could be wielded equally well by the side you oppose.
Liberals are all “here and now.” They never think, e.g., that their own heroes might be swept up in endless litigation by the appointment of an independent counsel with effectively infinitely deep pockets and authority to pursue.
I don’t think Mann should be suing, because it seems like an expensive, ugly undertaking with little chance of an equivalent upside. But I can understand the temptation to respond to being compared to an infamous child molester.
But being called a data molester – by analogy to an infamous child molester – is NOT the same as being called a child molester.
Mann is reaping the whirlwind he sowed.
In any case, insult, if that were the case, is not an actionable offense under the law.
Mann has no problem associating people he disagrees with with the genocide of millions of Jews and anti-semitic philosophy.
I’ve read Kinnerly’s comments. I suspect Mann’s suit, if filed, will be quickly dropped because he can’t win. Not that he’d lose over the truth or falsity of his climate research — a judge would probably rule that out of bounds well before the trial actually began. Nor would he have problems demonstrating that he had been libeled, nor that libelers were acting with malice — it would take about two minutes of court time to read that comparison of Mann and Jerry Sandusky to a jury and convince everyone in the court room that the comparison was intentionally insulting.
But he’d have great problems convincing a jury that the libel had been harmful in any way, that it had been injurious. No one but a raving lunatic regards National Review Online as a source of scientific knowledge. Only halfwits can’t see that “The Science and Public Policy Institute” and “The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” are shill organizations. And no one is going to confuse you and Mark Steyn with professional climate researchers.
So, undoubtably you’ve hurt Mann’s feelings for the moment, but in the long run he and the rest of the world will accede to the view that climate change denialists really don’t count for much.
…it would take about two minutes of court time to read that comparison of Mann and Jerry Sandusky to a jury and convince everyone in the court room that the comparison was intentionally insulting.
The insult in the Sandusky comparion, if there was one, was toward Penn State and its penchant for covering up misdeeds of its employees who bring in vast amounts of revenue, not Michael Mann.
Moreover, Mann’s suit is futile because he’s made himself a public figure. not to mention that truth is an absolute defense.
The insult in the Sandusky comparion, if there was one, was toward Penn State and its penchant for covering up misdeeds of its employees who bring in vast amounts of revenue, not Michael Mann.
Mann is the one being compared to Sandusky, as a fellow molester (in his case, of data). There’s no way that pairing isn’t a deliberate insult to Mann. The thrust of the piece isn’t “Sandusky and Mann show how terrible Penn State is,” it’s “Sandusky shows how Mann could get away with terrible things at Penn State.”
There’s no way that pairing isn’t a deliberate insult to Mann.
Nonsense. The intent is not to “insult” Mann, but to make the point that Penn State covers up the malfeasance of its employees who bring in big bucks to the university, whether in football or “climate science.” I suspect that the jury will be smarter about this than you.
“Sandusky shows how Mann could get away with terrible things at Penn State.”
Um, Jim… that’s an opinion. The “could” statement precludes it from being a fact. Wrong opinions are not libel. You just proved that Rand’s actions were not libel. Congratulations.
Just in case, I think Rand, et al should still seek Mann’s emails to see if Penn State might have covered up for him. It’s just the prudent thing for a defendant to do.
it would take about two minutes of court time to read that comparison of Mann and Jerry Sandusky to a jury and convince everyone in the court room that the comparison was intentionally insulting.
That’s how long it would take to read it. Convincing a jury that the intent/desire was to cause pain/injury instead of laughter/page-hits would take a lot longer.
I followed one specific frivolous lawsuit (SCO vs. IBM) for years, with constantly shifting nebulous charges, before it was finally resolved for lack of grounds almost simultaneous with the plaintiff declaring bankruptcy. So yes, an irrational plaintiff can drag a case on and on without really having a case.
Peterh,
Yes, and truth is usually the first casualty in the courtroom, especially if you have sharp legal talent. It will be an interesting case to watch, but I wouldn’t want to be part of the mess. It may well take years to get to trial with legal bills mounting for both sides, especially when donor fatigue sets in after the initial burst of donations.
It will also be interesting to see if the court agrees that he is a public figure setting the bar higher. And yes, the Judge will decide that one not the blogsphere, so the opinions of the folks here don’t matter one wit in that regard. The Judge will decide based on their interpretation of legal precedent as it applies in this case. In my opinion Dr. Mann meets the requirements for a “limited public figure” but I am not the Judge and Dr. Mann could argue, legally, his status was involuntary and an unintended result of his research.
I also assume the case is being filed in Pennsylvania where he will have the home field advantage in jury selection.
Yes, it will be interesting to watch and will help define some legal issues surrounding the status of blogs. But like most libel suits it will be a mess.
Is he a Public Figure? 18,300,000 hits for Michael E. Mann on Google would argue yes.
There’s that, but according to Pennslyvania law, a government official is a public figure, such a high school teachers. I suspect a professor at public university would fit that description. One would think other professors would have a clue how that works.
Leland,
There is a difference between a public figure in the eyes of the court in a libel lawsuit and someone simply working for a public agency. Which is why one of the first things the court will rule on is if Michael Mann meets the legal requirements under libel law. Also if Michael Mann files in Washington D.C., where the think tank is located, than Pennsylvania state law likely wouldn’t apply anyway.
And BTW, as I noted, I believe in my opinion he meets the standard for a “limited public figure”, which you seem to overlook. But again, the court ruling on it is part of the process. Remember, in a court room its the Judge that decides what is evidence, fact, and admissible. Like the Captain of a ship in the days of sail they are in complete charge of their little part of the world, although of course you do have the right to appeal it up the food chain, but then that is why lawsuits take so long and cost so much to resolve anything.
Quite possibly true, but as Sandusky is dead there’s no one with standing to sue.
When you get into the courtroom, you really have to check your emotions at the entrance-door metal detectors, and that goes for both sides of the dispute.
At the core of the dispute are “molested and tortured” the data and Steyn’s use of the word “fraudulent” as an adjective describing the “Hockey Stick graph.”
With respect to the Warmistas and Dr. Mann himself, it really doesn’t much matter how successful others have been in replicating his results or how hot it was this summer or how “even the Kochs buy into Climate Change these days.” The drawing an analogy to a convicted pedophile doesn’t really matter either.
“Torture and molest the data” is an accusation that Dr. Mann violated scientific integrity, that he conducted some occult (meaning hidden or not revealed) procedures on the data to come up with the Hockey Stick.
Since Dr. Mann has not been convicted let alone charged (successfully to date) with any specific scientific integrity violation, “you guys” are going to be left hanging with respect to a courtroom verdict. Your only defense against libel is “the truth”, namely, some demonstration, evidence, or proof that Dr. Mann had his way with the data.
Your best hope is Stephen McIntyre efforts to replicate the Hockey Stick from Mann’s own data sets, flawed as those may be. The McIntyre McKitrick paper supplies and affirmative but entirely circumstantial case that things are not exactly as the seem with the Hockey Stick.
But your defense in this case obtaining a “conviction” of Dr. Mann in playing games with his data. Are you going to get the data to “come forward” about what happened between them and Dr. Mann in the athletic locker room?
And when you are done, your best outcome in defending yourselves is to leave Dr. Mann’s reputation and scientific career in ruin, which to some, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy, but, I am sure the Warmist (or is it now Changist?) community will be perfectly happy to throw Dr. Mann under the bus and move on doing what it is that they do.
You also have to remember that courtroom proceedings really aren’t about Lady Justice but are themselves a kind of politics. The best you can hope for is a jury representing the point of view of the community at large rather than that of the Warmista scientific elite. But juries can be “funny” as to how they arrive at a verdict, and their thought processes may not reflect the people who hang around this place either.
But this could break new ground, of a grass-root Army-of-Davids bunch of Internet “wingnuts” holding a hallowed scientist to account for many of the sloppy record keeping, outside-inquiry blowing off, confirmation-bias confirming practices going on these days. Gummint people have kinda learned to adapt to FOIA and all of that, and in crossing over from the Ivory Tower to the realm of public policy, this will be a new experience for the scientific community.
But I am also just sayin’ that the National Review and its Blogosphere allies are rolling the dice on this one.
Clarification — it is Mann’s data sets that may be flawed owing to Heat Island Effect, problems with tree ring data, not the McIntyre McKitrick paper, and I am qualifying that as a possibility, not as a known fact. I am not accusing Dr. Mann of any fraud here as I am not eager to “get in on the hot lawsuit action.” I am just expressing scientific opinion based on known limitations to temperature/tree ring correlation studies.
Are you from Europe? Libel is much easier to win there…
IANAL, but… in the US, to win a claim of libel against a defendant (NR in this case), Mann must:
1. prove that the statement was false
2. prove that the statement caused harm
3. prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement
and (since he is a public figure):
4. prove that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as “proving malice”
This is essentially impossible to prove – I don’t think such a case has been won on behalf of a public figure in years! Really, Mann has no case – he is trying to use the law as a club.
Does the plaintiff have to prove the statement was false, or is proving the statement true a possible defense?
It would be impossible for a plaintiff to prove that he has not committed fraud — one can’t prove a negative.
I am not from Yurp, but I am pretty sure that “the truth” is a sufficient condition for a defense, not sure if it is a necessary condition in the U.S..
To defend a libel action by arguing the truth, one would have to uncover willful data fudging. There is a circumstantial case for it, but finding a “smoking gun” in the eyes of a jury will be challenging.
What many/all are missing here is how high the bar is for the plaintiff. He must prove not only that those ostensibly libeling him were not only purveying false info, but doing so deliberately, i.e., lying. The legal phrase is “reckless disregard for the truth. I would challenge any reader of this site or my other writings to find any evidence that I actually believe Mann’s work to be on the up and up…
That standard only applies if Mann is treated as a public figure, correct?
Like I said above Jim, 18,300,000 hits for Michael (Wyle) E. (Coyote) (note the inclusion of his middle initial) Mann would pretty effectively argue for considerable fame.
Tom Selleck only returns 3,700,000 hits by comparison! Surely no one can argue Mr. Selleck is not a public figure!
Mike, you’re misunderstanding how google works. At the very least, put “Michael E. Mann” in quotes, and you’ll see 18 million drops to around 1 million. Well, one million still sounds big, right? Yes, but again, I think you need to know more about how google works. For example, I tried googling with quotes and got 800,000, and then I googled again a few hours later (knowing that certain google employees can tweak the algorithm as they run various experiments) and got a number around 300,000. I’m not sure either number represents the real number.
It is irrelevant to the main discussion — whether Mann is a (limited) public figure or not.
Don’t discourage them! NR, Steyn, etc., should be cowering in the metaphorical corner, wailing “please, please don’t sue! We don’t want to go to court.” Save the demolishing arguments for the courtroom, where Mann and the AGW Kiddies can no longer hide behind falsified data and emotional sophistry.
This is an opportunity to set a big ol’ bear trap, one at which we may not get another chance. Bait it well.
From a layman’s point of view, the law is a Transmogrifier Gun set on RANDOM. “I don’t think it means what you think it means” could have been written about ordinary people trying to interpret the law using common sense and logic.
So don’t get cocky, is all I’m saying.
Don’t get cocky is always good advice. But it should be pretty easy to show that Mann created the hocky stick by cooking the data because that’s what he did.
Bad things happen in this corrupt world. That is a fact. But occasionally right triumphs. This should be one of those cases. Get Iowahawk to be the defense expert witness. The trial would be over right after his testimony. He knows how to explain to a jury what a fraud Mann is.
On the gripping hand, we might be treated to the spectacle of a judge appointing himself arbiter over the natural sciences, as in the Roe and Kitzmiller decisions. So, yay.
Rand, here’s what amazes me about this whole thing, in no particular order:
1) You are making a claim, in this case a claim of fraud. To win on the truth defense, you have to prove Mann knowingly lied. He could be wrong all day, but if you can’t show he knew he was wrong you’re SOL.
2) You have to convince a Pennsylvania judge (or worse, a jury) that linking somebody to a convicted pedophile wasn’t defamatory or reckless disregard for the truth.
3) You have to put your academic background and (lack of) research credentials up against Mann and the National Academy of Science, to name just a few people.
4) You have to convince a judge or jury that will read selected “greatest hits” from this site that you have any regard for the truth, let alone not “recklessly disregarding” truth.
… all the while your lawyer is billing somebody by the hour. I personally think your best hope is that the judge rules Mann’s a public person and dismisses the case.
1) Mann is bringing the lawsuit. Unless NR or Rand bring a countersuit, they don’t have to prove anything.
2) Where was the linkage to a convicted pedophile? I believe the linkage was to where the convicted pedophile worked. Gerrib, are you claiming Mann and Sandusky didn’t both work at Penn State?
3) No. You routinely assert such elitist nonsense, and you still are wrong.
4) The above is written by a guy who claimed Zimmerman and the Sanford Police lied based on a fuzzy video served up by ABC News. Dr. Gerrib, heal yourself.
1) no, Rand is the accuser – claiming Mann is a fraud. Rand, if he wants to claim truth as a defense, needs something other than his good looks.
I am not on trial. If this goes to court, Rand is.
Rand is the accuser – claiming Mann is a fraud. Rand, if he wants to claim truth as a defense, needs something other than his good looks.
a) I am not on trial.
b) While truth is an absolute and sufficient defense, it is not necessary. All that is necessary is that I believed it to be the truth, and can provide adequate reason why I did so.
In order for Mann to prevail, he would have to prove that I believed something other than what I wrote at the time.
Good luck with that.
On the other hand, we do have proof that he wrote things in public that he didn’t believe in private. Those leaked emails are sooooo inconvenient…
Actually, if it goes to court, you are on trial. And you need to show that you had some basis other than a reckless disregard for the truth to call him a fraud.
Are you sure those leaked emails will be admissible in court?
Actually, if it goes to court, you are on trial.
Are you Mann’s lawyer? Are you someone data mining for Mann’s lawyer? How do you know Rand will be on trial if Mann takes Steyn and NR to court?
Despite numerous corrections aimed directly at your comments, Gerrib; you keep insisting that Rand will have to defend himself, or do other legal activities. Why do you keep making these false statements?
Actually, if it goes to court, you are on trial.
No, I am not. CEI is. I may or may not be a witness, but ultimately, CEI has to defend the publication, not me. They are more than competent to do so, given that they have Chris Horner, Myron Ebell, and their own general counsel available.
And you need to show that you had some basis other than a reckless disregard for the truth to call him a fraud.
That is a trivial task.
Are you sure those leaked emails will be admissible in court?
I don’t know why they wouldn’t be. But even if not, they are unnecessary to win the case.
You really don’t understand how completely untenable Mann’s legal situation is, do you?
Sorry, it’s just wishful thinking.
Mann is threatening the lawsuit, not Rand. Mann’s lawyers are accusing Steyn and NR (maybe Rand, don’t know yet) of libel. Get your facts right, or you might get accused of libel.
What amazes me is that some guy was so butthurt about something that was said on the internet that he wants to sue over it.
Judge: ” Ok what’s the deal here?”
Mann: “This guy said I molested data like Sandusky molested children.”
Judge lowers head and covers face with his hands concealing his laughter. “I’m sorry exscuse me a moment. Have you ever been on the internet? Let’s take a look at how you handled the data, no pun intended.”
Mann: “I’m really here cause a guy said my hockey stick graph was fraudulant.”
Judge: “This same graph that was just demonstrated to be inaccurate? So, you are saying that you were wrong but didn’t realize you were wrong despite having read all the criticism of your work and therefore is not fraud?”
Mann: “Yes.”
Judge: “I am not sure if what you did rises to the level of fraud but you have been peddling this graph around at various public events. The defendants have shown your work to be inaccurate. Ignorance has never been a good defense so whether you commited fraud, lied, or were simply wrong is immaterial because you were wrong. I am dismissing the case and ordering that you not access the internet until you have passed a psychological evaluation the you are man enough to handle it, no pun intended.”
1) “The truth” is only one defense. The other defense is using hyperbolic language in advocacy of a political cause for which there is a strong tradition of 1st Amendment protection. Also, to pursue a truth defense, I think it would be enough to show some “manipulation of the data.” There is circumstantial evidence in that direction.
2) The pedophile matter is only an analogy — the assertion is that Dr. Mann did to the data what Mr. Sandusky was convicted of doing to young boys. The assertion in no way accuses Dr. Mann of being a pedophile.
3) What does Rand’s or Steyn’s or NR editor’s scientific credentials have to do with anything in all of this? This is a mistaken “argument from authority” argument. Dr. Mann is either a fraud because he engaged in undisclosed manipulations of his data or he is not a fraud because he did not. Whether the climate is warming or it is not, whether Rand or even Dr. Mann is credentialed or not has nothing to do with this.
4) Your comment goes to the point that most of what takes place here is expression of political opinion and not science, and your proposed evidence would activate strong 1st Amendment protections.
This is like the rich lady who was named to the board of a “reform school” for wayward boys with the idea that she would crack open her checkbook to help pay for the place. She couldn’t help herself, however, to refrain from volunteering at the school. At the end of a month of this, she appeared before the board and declaimed, “Sirs, a fine school you have here, but it could benefit from a better class of bo.”
Fine opinion Web site, Rand, but it could benefit from a better quality of (opposition arguments).
Jim asks:
“That standard only applies if Mann is treated as a public figure, correct?”
No.
Rand – what exactly do you expect to find in discovery? It’s not like a judge would let you say “give me everything and I’ll go fishing.”. You need to ask for specific and relevant stuff.
Rand – what exactly do you expect to find in discovery?
At a minimum, the emails that UVa has been hiding from FOIA, which we will explain to a judge will reveal that he in fact knew that his hockey stick was bogus, based on other evidence…
Sorry to disappoint.
So you expect to find an email that Mann wrote saying “I’m a fraud” (if not in so many words)?
Good luck with that.
Ah yes, the parting strawman shot. Used when all other arguments have failed on their merit. Got any ad hominems too, gerrib?
So you expect to find an email that Mann wrote saying “I’m a fraud” (if not in so many words)?
You never know what you’ll find when you turn over rocks. But I imagine they think they’ll find something.
“So you expect to find an email that Mann wrote saying “I’m a fraud” (if not in so many words)?”
It has happened before. The climategate e-mails were pretty damning. If the pattern holds, I expect they would be very juicy indeed.
So you expect to find an email that Mann wrote saying “I’m a fraud” (if not in so many words)?
We already have emails of others saying that he is.
But that isn’t necessary. We have plenty of data, even without the emails, that the hockey stick is fraudulent.
Rand, suppose the lawsuit is filed and you are named as a defendant. Your attorney advises making a motion for dismissal on the grounds that Mann is a public figure. Would you reject such advice because there would be no discovery if the motion were granted and the suit dismissed?
Is the discovery process just as important if not more important to you than ultimately prevailing?
I would ultimately prevail either way, but that’s an unlikely hypothetical. The suit won’t be against me, it will be against CEI (they want a deep pocket). Their lawyers will make that decision, and if I am named, I will use their lawyers, not have my own. I suspect that in their own case the answer to that is “yes,” though I’m sure that they are absolutely sure they will prevail. Mann simply doesn’t have a case. What I wonder is, who is paying his tobacco attorney? If he’s taking it on contingency, he’s a fool, or doesn’t understand the background.
I should add, that if I were named, and I got my own attorney, it would be pro bono (I’ve already had offers) and none of them would advise that I do that, because the reason that they would take the case is precisely so that they could do the discovery.
Thank you for posting the link to Maxwell Kennerly’s blog. If this mishugas actually continues, it would be great to continue to hear multiple perspectives.
I think it is funny that you keep referring to John B. Williams as a “tobacco lawyer”. His resume is actually quite varied:
http://www.cozen.com/attorney_detail.asp?d=1&atid=1406
You might just as well call him “a Watergate attorney” or a, well, I don’t even want to come up with a name for the other item of interest to readers of this blog, but look at these two items:
“He represented G. Gordon Liddy in his 10-year lawsuit against John W. Dean and Ida Maxie Wells arising from Liddy’s endorsement of a revisionist theory of Watergate. During this litigation, John conducted the deposition of virtually every living Watergate figure, including John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, Howard Hunt, Jeb Stuart Magruder, and John Dean. The case was successfully tried to a defense verdict in 2002. ”
“In other first amendment litigation John recently represented Lt. Colonel Martha McSally in her successful challenge of the Department of Defense regulation that required American servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear the Islamic abaya.”
I think it is funny that you keep referring to John B. Williams as a “tobacco lawyer”.
I think it is funny that when I do something exactly once, you think that I “keep doing it.”
Regardless of his previous experience, I remain curious about who is paying him, and why he’s taking the case.
Well, you called John B. Williams a “tobacco lawyer” three days ago too, here:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=44124
The phrase jumped out at me, and prompted me to read his bio. I guess you don’t find the phrase as memorable as I do!
Did he, or did he not, represent tobacco companies? If so, then he has been a tobacco industry lawyer, abbreviated “tobacco lawyer”. You see, it’s really very simple. Or would be, of course, were he representing someone the Left disliked.
As I’ve said before, one of my heroes is the Jewish lawyer who represented the Nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie, IL. Everyone beats up on lawyers, but I think they rock.
Anyway, I would have thought Rand and many of you folks would be enjoying the Watergate connection, despite referring to Climategate as Climaquiddick(sp).
It isn’t about you. It is about your liberal brothers-in-arms and their brazen hypocrisy.
Using the term liberal in relation to Mann and his supporters is torturing the word.
I need a bit of historical clarification. I’ve been part-time following the climate prediction controversy for about 3 years, but there’s a lot of history there. I know that the United Nations first assessment report (AR1) showed the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as being warmer than today (The farms in Greenland attest to that). Ditto the Little Ice Age. But by the time AR5 came out, both MWP and LIA were gone, replaced by a flat line rising sharply in the past 50 years.
My question is: Did the IPCC change their temperature history plot based on Mann’s hocky stick?
I think it was based on Briffa’s Eurasian larches, not Mann’s bristlecones. At least, that’s my understanding, given that it was Briffa who first attempted to disappear the MWP.