Scholars and Rogues imagine that they have a useful critique of our latest filings in the MannSuit, but they completely misunderstand the situation:
These examples demonstrate that both NR and Steyn were aware of ongoing investigations, and that NR was certainly aware of the results of at least one of those investigations. Furthermore, it is not realistic to imagine that NR cultivated a culture where authors writing about the same subject (climate change/global warming) were so isolated from each other that they never discussed the results of the various investigations among themselves. As such, it is virtually certain that NR and Steyn were aware of the investigations’ results and thus cannot credibly claim ignorance of those same results. [Emphasis in original]
This, with all respect, is stupid. Or it’s smart, but a complete straw man. None of the defendants have claimed that they were unaware of the results of the investigations. In fact, the original blog post that I wrote was all about the results of those investigations, and why we and others disagreed with them. They (and Mann) are attempting to claim that the investigations a) properly investigated all accusations of malfeasance against him and b) exonerated him of all such claims. Both are (in our opinions) untrue. The investigations, to the degree that they happened, were limited in their scope, and for the most part cursory (e.g., the Penn State “investigation” basically consisted of asking Mann if he did anything wrong, without questioning anyone else, and when he replied in the negative, “exonerated” him). That is what the entire dispute is about, so it’s obtuse and pointless to claim that we claim that we were unaware of the investigation results.
That strikes me as being as stupid as attacking someone who wrote “… and OJ Simpson is guilty!” by wading through tons of documents to prove that the author or authors must have been aware of the jury’s verdict.
Duh.
Yes, excellent analogy.
Well, that was the purpose of the fig-leaf “investigations” in the first place – to proclaim innocence, and provide talking points to shut down further criticism.
None of the defendants have claimed that they were unaware of the results of the investigations
Take a closer look at NR’s motion to reconsider:
You and Steyn may not be denying that you knew about the investigations, but Steyn’s lawyers are claiming that he did not prompt those investigations, and therefore might not have known about their results, and therefore might not have called Mann’s work fraudulent with “actual malice”.
You’re right that it’s a stupid and false argument, but it’s NR/Steyn’s lawyers making it.
Again, you demonstrate your lack of logic. You have a broken syllogism. Whence the “therefore”?
It’s NR’s lawyers’ logic, not mine. Why are they claiming (falsely) that Steyn never called for an investigation of Mann, if not to undercut the judge’s claim that Steyn had to know about the investigation results?
Wow Jim. Did you even read George’s comment before making such a fool of yourself?
Or do you think if you didn’t prompt an investigation into OJ Simpson, you must also not know the results of that investigation?
So why are NR’s lawyers (falsely) claiming that NR didn’t call for an investigation? Are they missing the point?
Well, certainly you are missing the point even after George clearly spelled it out for you.
I would recommend you not be so libelous in your comments about the NR lawyers.
I think your quote stems from the judge mixing up the defendants not the plot you alledge.
Why are they claiming (falsely) that Steyn never called for an investigation of Mann, if not to undercut the judge’s claim that Steyn had to know about the investigation results?
Because Plaintiff is claiming that such a call would be evidence of malice (also illogical). But then, logic doesn’t seem to be his lawyer’s strong suit, either.
“Because Plaintiff is claiming that such a call would be evidence of malice (also illogical). But then, logic doesn’t seem to be his lawyer’s strong suit, either.”
and yet the judge sustained the lawsuit.
You must be way better at logic then the judge.
No comment.
But note, the judge didn’t rule there was evidence of malice, only that discovery might discover some. So you’re apparently logic challenged as well (nothing new there, of course).
Because Plaintiff is claiming that such a call would be evidence of malice
NR’s lawyers could argue that that having called for investigations isn’t evidence of malice, but they don’t. Instead, they falsely deny that NR/Steyn called for investigations, which (as S&R note) is just asking for trouble.
You seem to think you and Steyn have a good argument, so why are Steyn’s lawyers making a false and counter-productive claim instead?
Why do lawyers do anything they do? Legal maneuverings do not constitute anything of evidentiary value here.
This thread isn’t about evidentiary value, it’s about Rand’s claim that Scholars and Rogues are missing the point, when it appears that it’s NR’s lawyers who are (in Rand’s view) missing the point.
This particular sub-thread is questioning why lawyers do what they do, and whether it necessarily has significance with respect to the merits of the case.
Are they arguing much of anything yet? The trial hasn’t started, it is premature to speak of what is happening as if closing arguments were tomorrow.
Instead, they falsely deny that NR/Steyn called for investigations, which (as S&R note) is just asking for trouble.
Wrong again, Jim. They denied NR/Steyn prompted the Penn State investigation. That is all.
That is not all. See the quote from the NR/Steyn motion above:
Yet there are no facts –in the record or otherwise –that suggest National Review and Steyn ever called for or prompted any investigation of Plaintiff’s research
This is plainly false. The National Review previously published, in reference to Mann, this statement:
In these crushing economic times, is it too much to ask that university authorities, our political leaders, and the press jump on this case with a bit more rigor?
NR: Investigate Mann!
NR lawyers: our client never called for any investigation of Mann!
Sounds like the post wanted media, university, and government officials to be held accountable for the research industrial complex and the conflicts of interests with government agents, political activists, and researchers as a general matter and not investigations into academic fraud or whatever is alledged in the law suit. Not surprising because at this time tens of billions of dollars were going to a host of now failed green energy companies.
This wasn’t a “call” for investigation on a specific allegation made to people who could sanction an investigation. It was just someone posting on the internet that the relationships of the people who give and recieve stimulus spending as a whole needs more attention.
One other thing, you need to check your timeline because there was an ongoing investigation when you claim they were calling for one. Therefore, whatever the nature of the post, it had zero impact on responsible parties deciding to begin an investigation.
In these crushing economic times, is it too much to ask that university authorities, our political leaders, and the press jump on this case with a bit more rigor?
Jim in a previous thread:
You are basically arguing that if a university has administrators (in this case an athletic director and VP for finance) that cover up sexual abuse by a coach, then the integrity of the university’s entire academic faculty is in doubt.
Ok Jim, who conducted the investigation into Mann: University authorities or members of the academic faculty?
Regardless of your answer, wodun properly explains your continuing error. As far I’m concerned, you are libeling the NR and their lawyers. You should stop.
The investigations, to the degree that they happened, were limited in their scope
You insist that you were aware of the investigations, but your “to the degree that they happened” is a give-away — at least part of you isn’t quite ready to admit that they really happened.
And as for “limited in scope” — every investigation is limited in scope.
the Penn State “investigation” basically consisted of asking Mann if he did anything wrong,
That isn’t the case. They didn’t just ask Mann if he did anything wrong, they read the Climategate emails, along with other written sources, and had Mann explain his statements. One of the allegations was that he’d destroyed emails; he furnished the emails in question, which proves rather conclusively that he hadn’t destroyed them.
Imagine that you’re audited by the IRS. You furnish the documents they request, and answer their questions to their satisfaction. They conclude that there’s no evidence you cheated on your taxes. Is that a whitewash? Is it reasonable for someone to continue to publicly call you a tax cheat, because the IRS obviously didn’t scrutinize you closely enough?
without questioning anyone else
They did question others — Gerald North and Donald Kennedy. And of course they had access to lots of written materials.
Mann was repeatedly investigated, by different groups, in different ways. The question seems to be whether you have the right to disregard investigations that don’t come back with the answer you want.
“Mr. Simpson, we’ve looked at some crime scene photos. Did you do it?”
“No.”
“Whew. Glad we cleared that up.”
So, when the “experts” of 100 years ago concluded that certain races were superior to others, we should all have gone along with them and rid the world of the untermenschen?
I don’t want to hang around forever waiting for a reply, so how about I continue the conversation for you?
Jim: Of course not! I would never agree to genocide.
Me: Ah, so you DO have a right “to disregard investigations that don’t come back with the answer you want.”
Jim: But, but, that’s different!
Me: How so?
Jim: It just is!
Me: I see.