I noticed this at the time as well:
Interestingly, it appears that Judge Combs Greene has mixed-up the defendants in the court’s ruling, attributing actions taken by the Consumer Enterprise Institution to Mark Steyn and National Review.
I have no comment. I also have no comment on these comments.
[Wednesday-morning update]
In fairness to the judge, the people most likely to comment at a site like that are going to be people unhappy with her rulings — it’s less likely that someone should show up to laud her, regardless of the quality of her work.
Also, Phil Plait has more, with several links. He’s very happy, of course.
It’s very frustrating to not be able to make any substantive comments on this.
[Update a couple minutes later]
This at the always misnamed ThinkProgress is hilarious: “Mann has been vindicated yet again!”
Yes. Right.
[Bumped]
I’ve long suspected that many judges are little more than failed lawyers with sufficient political connections to get appointed to the bench.
You can request a rehearing based upon plain error, but,
the judge will just point out that it was a minor typographical error,
have the clerk correct the opinion and refile it.
It’s not like the difference in behaviour between the two defendants was so wildly different as to justify a complete reversal of the ruling.
You would have more of a case if she had dismissed NRO and kept CEI, or v/v,
but, here, it’s not likely to move the needle.
Now you may be able to later appeal to the appelate court and find
plain error there, but, at this point, the case is headed to discovery,
and scheduling. If Judge Green is planning to retire some other judge will
Maybe you can get Judge Dredd. “I am the Law”…
Typical leftist mandarin – the law and the facts are whatever the hell she wants them to be.
Looks like Bad Astronomy has a piece on the lawsuit as well.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/24/antiscience_defamation_climate_scientist_michael_mann_lawsuit_to_move_forward.html
Scary stupid. These clowns obviously never got the memo that the warming stopped almost two decades ago.
I also have no comment on these comments.
Lucky she’s such a good Judge, if she were a bad Judge and you’re obvious innuendo were pointed out to her, she might take offense – and that could cost you.
As I said, I have no comment.
the always misnamed ThinkProgress
It’s perfectly accurate.
They think it’s Progress.
They’re just wrong.
If they actually would think, it would be progress.
“Some cynic declares that 5 per cent of people think, 10 per cent think they think, while 85 per cent would rather lie down and die than think.”
– Attribution subject to dispute
I’m not sure. Does that qualify as haiku?
Ah, now we see how low the bar for “vindication” is. Next time someone comes trolling in here about how Mann’s been “vindicated”, he can be safely ignored.
of course Mann hasn’t been vindicated, what’s happened is that he’s passed a early test and shown “In the light most favorable to the Plaintiff” that he is likely to be able to demonstrate a prima-facie case.
Had the Defendants been able to show that Mann was in fact an ‘Academic Fraud’ or ‘ Molester of data’ or that Defendants commentary was
Fair Comment, or Invited Review, then perhaps you could say the
Defendants were vindicated, but it’s far to early for either side to
take a victory lap.
The Judge basically said there is enough here to start discovery.
it will likely be 2 years of discovery, interrogatories, and depositions.
I guess the Defense can subpoena all of Mann’s lab notes, and data packs, now.
Dcguy,
Sounds good, but who is going to be paying Rand’s lawyer’s bill while all this fun is going on? Discover, or anything that involved the law firm’s time isn’t free…