Bishop Hill The layman's guide to Mann vs Steyn
Jun 9, 2014 Climate: Mann Climate: Sceptics Legal blogger Jonathan Adler has written an excellent layman's summary of the state of play on the Mann vs Steyn and Steyn vs Mann cases. For those following these things closely there is unlikely to be anything new, but for those who need to be brought up to speed this is the place to go.
The climate policy debate is quite heated. Partisans hurl charges against each others with impunity, challenging the honesty, intelligence, and integrity of those on the other side. So it’s understandable that many environmentalists hope Mann will win. Yet should he prevail, many on his side may come to rue this result. Should Mann win, it will not be long before defamation suits are filed in the other direction. Every time an environmental activist suggests someone on the other side is “bought” by fossil fuel interests, they had better be able to substantiate their claim, or they will be inviting a lawsuit.
Reader Comments (14)
Are we looking at the possibility of a "catch CO22 situation.
I will close the door on the way out.
One side will deploy lawyers with Other people's
Money. No prize to guess whose side that will be
Who ever would want to buy the Mount Pelerin Society ?
Ptw said:
One side will deploy lawyers with Other people's
Money. No prize to guess whose side that will be.
Are legal systems that encourage litigation sustainable?
Russell, your comment needs to be translated into English for it to make sense.
Russel
I don't know what the Hayek you are talking about.
Roy,
Clearly it is and Mann has used it to his full advantage.
Regards
Mailman
In many ways I'm surprised to see this article in the Washington Post , a very pro warmist paper. There was another piece a few weeks ago that looked an the issue from a sceptics view point ( sorry I cannot recall the details). Are the sands starting to shift , even a little bit in the USA ??
Popehat's Patrick White has also commented on a new case from the D.C. Court of Appeals which is directly aplicable to, and probably dispositive of, the Mann v. Steyn case. Doe v. Burke
This post is speculative. That said, it contains a Kernel of legal truth.
More useful is Steyn's countersuit, which 'guarantees' that discovery will continue no matter what Mann wishes. Costly, yes. Productive? Even more yes. Support this. It is on the front lines of the climate war currently being raged by well funded watermelons.
When the EPA chooses to isolate not one, but two statutory authorizations concerning new US coal generation regulations, (post probably forthcoming at CE) it is definitely time to man the barracades.
Ross:
It's a Volokh Conspiracy rather than an official Washington Post article or even a blogpost by one of the WaPo journalists (as the article mentions, the guy is also a National Review contributor) so it probably doesn't signal a shift on the part of the paper.
Russell,
I believe you mean The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) and not Mount Pelerin Society,
As Wiki says -
"The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) is an international organization composed of economists (including eight winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences), philosophers, historians, intellectuals, business leaders, and others committed to personal and political freedom."
Interesting; David Suzuki said at a meeting in Fort McMurray a year ago that geologists who are "deniers" are shills for Big Oil. I'm a geologist who is a denier by his definition (skeptic by mine, and one who says David Suzuki is an actor acting as a sensitive eco-green). So perhaps I will receive a favourable hearing in the Canadian courts if an American court says that a public figure (Steyn) can't say another public figure (Mann) is ethically (and technically) challenged.
Canadian courts do pay attention to significant American courts, just as they still do to British courts. Rulings that are long considered are relevant anywhere if the principles are applicable. A copy and paste justification.
Interesting. I'd like to see the McKibbens and the Romms and the Gores hoisted on the Mann petard. I wonder if they are aware that such a dilemma might be facing them, for the claims are quite strident: one only has to think of the vituperation against the Koch brothers and their alleged hirelings.
And all of this is because certain people have said that there is no discussion, that the science is settled and the outcome (of anthropogenic CO2 release) is settled. If there had been left room and a platform for debate, none of this would have come to pass. It would have been the best debater wins.
anonym
Yes, thanks, my mistake. I just saw Washington Post at the top and didn't take the time to realise it is just a link to WP