The judge in the case has refused to dismiss. I would note that this statement:
Several investigations over the years cleared Mann of allegations of wrongdoing.
…is factually incorrect, in both the blog post, and the ruling(s). As Sam Kazman says, it is likely that we will appeal.
So if your appeal is denied, this goes to court and the discovery process begins.
Everything is proceeding according to my plan (/Sidius)
The court system is a crap shoot. Only those with the deepest pockets win in the long term.
is factually incorrect
Which investigation found Mann guilty of wrongdoing?
Which one cleared him of it? As in, addressed the charges and showed they were unfounded (not a whitewash)?
As far as I’m aware, all of the official investigations into possible wrongdoing by Mann came up empty.
Wegman’s, for one.
But your question is irrelevant. That no one found wrongdoing doesn’t mean that he was “cleared,” particularly since none of those investigations were seriously looking for wrongdoing. They were all quite narrow and perfunctory.
But I wouldn’t expect you to understand that, given your penchant for illogic.
Wegman has been thoroughly discredited. I’m surprised the man still has any tenure.
Wegman has been thoroughly discredited.
Hilarious.
Well, if you find thoroughly discredited not to be a blemish on an otherwise stellar career, I suppose that’s true. He squeaked by supposedly on the Wegman Report because it’s apparently ok to fabricate evidence for a Republican congress and congress is exempt from litigation.
Wegman’s, for one.
You should reread it then, plenty was implied in the Wegman report, but there were no, none, zip, zero explicit accusations of wrong doing – as opposed to minor methodological errors- by Mann.
“Methodological errors” are scientific wrong doing, when they go unadmitted for years, until called on them by authorities, after being ignored for years when pointed out by the peasants.
Mann is a statistical hack, and should have no credibility in climate “science.”
“Methodological errors” are scientific wrong doing, when they go unadmitted for years, until called on them by authorities, after being ignored for years when pointed out by the peasants.
The respondents haven’t been taken to court for pointing out methodological errors.
The judge wrote:
The judge seems to putting the burden on the defense to prove that the investigations were mistaken.
Empty? Cut the weasel word crap. What, specifically, did they “clear” him of?
Are people who disagree with the whitewashes obligated to accept them as the final word?
And, remember, the next time such a situation arises, you may be the one whose free speech rights are being stifled. Are you sure this is a precedent you want to have set?
Maybe you and I have different definitions of “free speech”, I can only conclude that to you free speech includes a campaign of lies intended to destroy someones life and reputation.
OK, just to be clear here. Are you really accusing me of lying?
That is, saying things about Michael Mann (or anyone) that I not believe to be really true?
Don’t worry — even if you are, unlike Michael Mann, I’d never bother to sue you.
OK, just to be clear here. Are you really accusing me of lying?
No, not specifically you, you’re not the only one who’s accused Mann of fraud, and I’ve no doubt you believe what you say.
I’d not accuse someone of lying unless I was certain of my ground.
A policy that you might consider adopting.
I’d not accuse someone of lying unless I was certain of my ground.
A policy that you might consider adopting.
That has been my policy since starting my website, almost a dozen years ago.
I continue to await your (non-libelous) point.
‘Maybe you and I have different definitions of “free speech”’
We definitely do. Apparently, you believe his reputation is unscathed, so what’s your gripe? And, you really believe a precedent to squelch unwelcome speech would never be used against you? How shallow are you?
Apparently, you believe his reputation is unscathed, so what’s your gripe?
I think you’re the one with the gripe, you’re the one who’s griping that libelers being forced to court is an infringement of free speech.
And, you really believe a precedent to squelch unwelcome speech would never be used against you? How shallow are you?
If I ran around telling lies about people, me being taken to task in the civil courts would be nothing other than my just comeuppance.
If I ran around telling lies about people
If?
Are you really accusing me of lying?
That is, saying things about Michael Mann (or anyone) that I not believe to be really true?
I will note that this isn’t the standard you apply when you accuse Obama (or anyone) of lying. For instance, you posted that Obama’s recent climate speech was “riddled with lies.” You made no argument that Obama believes anything other than what he said, you were just using “lies” as a lazy synonym for “statements I think are false.”
Andrew W: you say you’re not accusing Rand of lying, but you do say that a lawsuit against him is fine because it punishes telling lies about people. Could you get your story straight and then get back to us?
I will note that this isn’t the standard you apply when you accuse Obama (or anyone) of lying
That’s because Barack Obama has shown himself, on multiple occasions, to be an inveterate liar.
That’s because Barack Obama has shown himself, on multiple occasions, to be an inveterate liar.
Obama has lied before, so the things he says are lies, whether or not he believes them to be true? Do you really want to defend that logic? Do you really think that an individual’s behavior could change the meaning of the word “lie”?
Andrew W
July 23, 2013, 11:16 pm
“I think you’re the one with the gripe, you’re the one who’s griping that libelers being forced to court is an infringement of free speech.”
Wow. I’m griping that an infringement of free speech is an infringement of free speech. You can claim that it is a justified infringement of free speech, but you cannot say it is not an infringement of free speech. Apparently, the answer to my query was: very shallow.
In this country, the remedy for public figures subjected to what they consider unwelcome speech is more speech, not less. Always has been. It is one of the bedrock principles upon which this nation was founded. Once you start restricting speech which discomfits the powerful, there is no end to what you can restrict.
If you do not like it, please move somewhere else. And, if your arguments are so weak that they cannot stand up to sniping from ordinary bloggers, then consider that maybe you need a new argument, you pathetic loser.
roystgnr, the lawsuit isn’t all about Rand.
I think Andrew W is someplace else and has to live under different free speech laws. Sorry if I got that wrong Andrew W.
Yep, I’m a Kiwi, and yeah, a libel suit is more likely to be successful under NZ law than US law.
Andrew W: your new claim is that lawsuits which squelch unwelcome speech by non-liars are fine so long as some liars are co-defendants? Am I understanding that right?
Isn’t Rand’s involvement more due to his: “[Mann] could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” than to accusations of fraud?
Also bear in mind that though I don’t accuse Rand of lying, I’m not the one bringing the lawsuit.
Yes, it was Mark Steyn who used the word “fraud,” not me. Which is another problem with the judge’s ruling.
“Yep, I’m a Kiwi…”
Well, Michael Mann is not. He has to operate under the rules of the jurisdiction in which he has filed his suit.
You can have him if you like. Free of charge. I’ll even chip in if you require a fee.
Do you really think that an individual’s behavior could change the meaning of the word “lie”?
I do, do you think that wouldn’t be true?
Example, when you came here and claimed that Obama shrunk the size of government by pointing out number of personnel per BLS numbers. You purposely attributed numbers for year ending 2009 to Bush, despite him being President for only 20 days in that year. Your subsequent behavior after I pointed out the footnote suggested you honestly missed it. You seemed to have thought 2009 meant the fiscal year not calendar year. It is very plausible, as Obama never shown a desire to decrease the size of government (other than militarily), that you were purposely misrepresenting the data all along. It was your contrition, a behavioral act, that suggested you likely believed what you wrote, although it was wrong all along. If you continued to behave as if you were right along, despite being shown your mistake; then it would be obvious you are nothing but a pathetic liar.
“If you continued to behave as if you were right along, despite being shown your mistake; then it would be obvious you are nothing but a pathetic liar.”
This is the position of Mann’s defenders.
I look at evidence as distinguishing between hypotheses. Keep in mind that this whole lawsuit exists because one such investigation (by the University of Pennsylvania) was very similar to an investigation of Sandusky which failed to look into some painfully obvious evidence. It had the same people instigate the investigation and the same motives to overlook wrongdoing. So how would such an investigation differ if Mann had done proper research or not? The outcomes have to differ or it’s not evidence.
I was in error – Penn state not University of Pennsylvania.
I believe Michael is in for his worst nightmare–discovery.
If you have this judge going forward, you have a problem because her bias is plain.
the NR Defendants consistently claim that Plaintiff’s work is inaccurate (despite being proven as accurate)
…aspersions of verifiable facts
This dismissal should be good news considering the possibility of discovery; but a judge that isn’t impartial or political creates a whole new risk.
one should not be surprised a judge who gets a check from the government,
is going to weight the words of a government official heavily.
Wegman has been thoroughly discredited? In your dreams. What’s discredited are Mann’s worthless tree ring proxies. State pen, not Penn State!
State pen, not Penn State!
In their efforts to get this lawsuit to go away the defense lawyers are claiming that NR and Rand didn’t accuse Mann of criminal wrongdoing. From the motion to dismiss:
In other words, when they compared Mann to guilty-on-45-counts Sandusky, they didn’t mean that Mann broke the law. When they accused him of molesting and torturing data, they didn’t mean that he made up data.
In other words, when they compared Mann to guilty-on-45-counts Sandusky, they didn’t mean that Mann broke the law. When they accused him of molesting and torturing data, they didn’t mean that he made up data.
No one accused Mann of breaking the law. The comparison was to how Penn State dealt with both cases, not their behavior per se.
No one accused Mann of breaking the law
So you think he used public funds to willfully commit scientific and academic fraud, but you don’t think he did anything criminal?
The comparison was to how Penn State dealt with both cases, not their behavior per se
Your line about molesting and torturing wasn’t about Penn State, it was about Sandusky and Mann’s behavior.
So you think he used public funds to willfully commit scientific and academic fraud
I’ve never said I think that.
In this very thread you say he’s guilty of scientific wrongdoing, and willfully standing by errors even after they’ve been pointed out. Isn’t “molesting and torturing data” scientific and academic fraud?
“So you think he used public funds to willfully commit scientific and academic fraud, but you don’t think he did anything criminal? “
Criminality is something for a jury to decide. But, in any case, since when did we start prosecuting thought crimes in this country? Is this really a road you want to go down?
I’m sure he doesn’t believe he is guilty of that. It’s only fraud if he’s doing it knowing that it’s giving false results. I’m sure that he felt justified in doing it, in his mind, in order to get the “right” answer.
I’m sure that he felt justified in doing it, in his mind, in order to get the “right” answer.
But the only significant difference a better methodology yields is higher levels of uncertainty prior to 600 years ago.
I’m sure that he felt justified in doing it, in his mind, in order to get the “right” answer.
I know t’s not intended as such but that sounds like an accusation of lying, it’s something that can be said of any liar.
I don’t think he’s a liar. I think he’s delusional.
So you think he used public funds to willfully commit scientific and academic fraud, but you don’t think he did anything criminal?
What would be the crime? Perhaps a link to the statute you think was violated?
Since you argue that “the statements were opinion and rhetorical hyperbole” I hope you sited the Eminem case in your filing.
http://lawhaha.com/the-real-slim-shady-is-not-a-michigan-trial-judge/
The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact
They’re an exaggeration of a childish fact
Any reasonable person could clearly see
That the lyrics could only be hyperbole
It is therefore this Court’s ultimate position
That Eminem is entitled to summary disposition
Mixed feelings, due to the potential fun and games ahead, though I agree with Ken that a judge with bias could radically change the dynamic of the trial.
I am reminder of the play, “The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde.” The trials concerned accusations of homosexuality, and at one point in the play, Wilde’s counsel asks for his word as an English gentleman that the accusations are false. Wilde gives his word and notes in an aside to the audience that he is an Irishman.
that wasn’t bias. the defence gambled on the evidence. based on the decision, they didn’t put forward any expert witrness criticism of mann to justify their comments.
the defence was counting on winning a legal argument that mann had to meet a higher than usual standard of proof to win, but they lost that argument, so all mann had to do was prove it was more likely than not his work was accurate.
so you have mann’s evidence asserting his work is true, plus evidence of multiple investigations of his work that cleared him, versus some criticisms of the completeness of those investigations and the bare wording of the anglia emails. judges find facts based on the evidence before them. the defence didn’t throw enough dust in the air here. based on the facts reviewed in the decision i would have ruled for mann.
in hindsight, the defendants should have gotten into the issue with experts. on the slapp motion mann carried the burden of proof so all they had to do was raise doubt. if this goes to trial the defendants will carry the burden of proof. they had better hope that discovery produces some meat.
Well, you certainly have an appropriate pseudonym. Thank you for demonstrating the profundity of your ignorance of the law. I assume that your ignorance is partly because you’re not an American (“defence”) and partly because you’re…well…ignorant.
the defence was counting on winning a legal argument that mann had to meet a higher than usual standard of proof to win
No. The law requires that the Plaintiff demonstrate that he has a high likelihood of winning.
If and when this case ever goes to trial, Mann’s science will be on trial as well, and there will be abundant witnesses against it. At this stage, the only issue is whether or not the trial can go forward in the context of the anti-SLAPP law. And you are a legal ignoramus.
No. The law requires that the Plaintiff demonstrate that he has a high likelihood of winning.
that was the argument of the defendants, the judge dismissed that. The law is a little untested, but the judge following standards set in other jurisdictions, cited the standard as being the same as for a Summary judgement. if the Judge were to set the standard higher, then what’s the point of having a trial?
Now I suppose the Defendants can appeal to the DC Court of Appeals and even to Federal court, but, the ruling of law appears reasonable. To appeal this ruling, seems a little premature.
Defense counsel are grown ups, and chose to attack the standard of law, I guess it was the best avenue, the Plaintiff didn’t want to make this a science trial, but rather a defamation trial and wether a claim of fraud can be false and falsiable.
Defense may later choose to make this more about the science, it will be most fascinating to see wether a jury will hear this case or if it will be done as a bench trial.
well, enough legal geeking, on to interlocutory appeal requests and
a schedule of discovery, and interrogatories.
I guess the depositions and interrogatories and document production will be interesting. Lots of raw data requests, notebooks, e-mail, etc…
that was the argument of the defendants, the judge dismissed that
In our opinion, based on precedent and the intent of the law, the judge was mistaken. We will respectfully ask her to reconsider, and if she doesn’t change her opinion, we will appeal.
if the Judge were to set the standard higher, then what’s the point of having a trial?
The point of the anti-SLAPP law is a law to defend the First Amendment, to minimize the expense to defendants in cases in which the plaintiff has no case. We made the case that the plaintiff had no case, ot at least an insufficient one to have a likelihood of winning, which is the standard. The judge disagreed.
To appeal this ruling, seems a little premature.
Only a little. It will occur if and when she doesn’t reconsider and rule in our favor. It shouldn’t take long.
“In an unrelated case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order in December finding that the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t provide for interlocutory review, meaning a party couldn’t appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss under the law.”
If the DC Court of Appeals has ruled that the statute doesn’t allow
interlocutory appeals, then this case is going forward.
Perhaps the judge will reconsider, but her ruling was well founded, and it’s unlikely a motion to reconsider will get anywhere. Especially if the court of appeals has recently ruled in this line of thought.
unless Judge Greene reverses herself, the case will go to trial.
I read a comment somewhere that this Judge is retiring in September. If true, do you another judge at random?
I don’t know. I’ve heard she retires at the end of the year. I don’t know if that’s fiscal year (end September) or calendar year (end January).
That Mann extensively celebrated a confirmation of his hockey stick that recently appeared in the journal Science but the study was not just statistical tweaks but used utterly ridiculous re-dating of time series data that lead to a hockey stick blade due to data drop off at the end, well, that vastly simplifies the argument that of all people, Mann is most qualified to denounce such fraud but instead eggs it on.
http://s17.postimage.org/qhmuyzfin/Shaun_Hockey_Stick.jpg
I think the judge’s ruling is quite understandable, when you remember that judges generally know very little about science (they don’t have to, their expertise is dispute resolution) and tend to always give the advantage to anyone who represents “established” authority.
It looks like the judge found that Mann *might* prevail on the merits; how could someone who knew nothing of the underlying science think differently? But I think the prospect and of full discovery followed by a full trial is something devoutly to be wished!
I think the judge’s ruling is quite understandable, when you remember that judges generally know very little about science (they don’t have to, their expertise is dispute resolution) and tend to always give the advantage to anyone who represents “established” authority.
I doubt anyone commenting here is familiar enough with Mann’s work to offer a court expert advice on the science.
I think the prospect and of full discovery followed by a full trial is something devoutly to be wished!
Yes, no doubt Mann is totally unaware of the discovery process and will be fatally blindsided.
/sarc
Since I will not be following this much after today, I just wanted to take this opportunity the best and hope you and allies nail the bastard in court and the result make us a very nice headline…
Climate fraudster unable to Mann up.
That would be, wish you the best. Sheesh, if only my mind and fingers would communicate.
An interesting paragraph from the decision:
The judge seems to be saying that it doesn’t matter whether the defendants actually believe in their heart of hearts that Mann is a fraud. Given investigations that found no fraud, and their awareness of those investigations, for the defendants to persist in calling Mann a fraud is to act with reckless disregard for truth.
Nobody is obligated to accept the empty words and inadequate investigations of sympathetic bodies as truth.
“The judge seems to be saying that it doesn’t matter whether the defendants actually believe in their heart of hearts that Mann is a fraud.”
I.e., you are saying the judge does not know the case law. According to your logic, the judge now has a legitimate libel case against you. Welcome to the brave new world you desire to create, where everyone gets their 15 minutes as a libel defendant.
Jim thinks the 1st amendment only applies to Democrats burning American flags and rioting in the street like OWS. Should you not follow Jim’s ideology, he thinks you have no right to speak.
you can say what you want, but you should not have a reckless
disregard for the truth.
I don’t. I have a very high regard for the truth. “Nobel Laureate” Mann, not so much.
well, he’s currently passed a SLAPP proceedings on this case.
that’s first base in pre-trial and sets up for scheduling, discovery
and negotiations.
This case may well settle, it may go into discovery and settle,
it may go into a series of evidentiary hearings and settle,
it may be dismissed after discovery completes,
it may impanel a jury, and settle, it may go through the plaintiffs
case and settle, it may go through a summary judgement and
be dismissed. It may complete the defendants case and
have a directed verdict, it may settle before going to the jury.
it may get ajury verdict, the judge may then dismiss this
as a matter of law. The case may be appealed, it may settle for less then the jury verdict.
There are many possible outcomes for this case.
I realize, you may not have thought this far through, but,
how do you want the case to proceed? Do you want to see if a reasonable settlement can occur before too much is spent on lawyers? Do you want to have an extensive discovery to set up for a trial on the science of “Anthropogenic Climate Change”? Do you want to have a trial on the science akin to the “Scopes Monkey Trial” or “Kitzmiller v Dover ” ?
I realize that resources and decisions have yet to be decided, but, what do you want to do with this case in your heart?