Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Merry Christmas, Mr Steyn

Right, St, the turns and twists of Scopes are Byzantine. I expect as much from this Crook't Stick Affair.

Jan 4, 2017 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim


Is there a single McIntyre Myth you haven't swallowed hook, line and sinker? The strip-bark/bristlecone/foxtails myth was busted by Wahl and Ammann, or if you prefer something for the general reader, Mann's book deals with it."

Mmnn. I have never caught Steve McIntyre out in a lie, whereas and SkS are constantly lying, or should I say twisting the truth, for the "wannabe like thems" on the web to come out slugging.

Phil you say Wahl and Amman debunked McIntyre on the bristlecone pine issue, actually I've never quoted Steve, I've always quoted Graybill and Idso, have Wahl and Ammann debunked them as well? I doubt it. I don't know what they debunked, but I do know what G&I said in their paper.

"Our research supports the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 fertilization on natural tree growth has been occurring from at least the mid- late- 19th century. This enhanced growth is most apparent in the high elevation supalpine conefers where newly fixed carbon is primarily allocated to cambial growth rather than other parts of the tree, as in the case of the strip-bark growth forms sampled here. These results, in tandem with studies of changes in the amplitude of the annual CO2 cycle cited by Idso(1991a, b), also suggest that growth increases du to CO2 fertilization are widespread. That they have not been commonly detected as ringwidth increases is likely due to the fact that most trees do not exhibit the form of growth behavior of those sampled in this study."

Figure 5 deals with bristlecone pines.

I've suggested it before, but you'd be as well going back to the original material rather than quoting activist scientists. And please, if you wouldn't mind stop parrotting realclimate, you're probably the only person who reads that site.

As an interesting aside (not for you Phil), there is some concern in US legal circles about this particular judgement.

"Whether or not Mann’s work shows all that he has claimed is not the question, for the First Amendment protects robust discussion and debate of scientific matters and the freedom to express wrong-headed opinions in inartful ways. The Defendants believe the ClimateGate e-mails showed that Mann and others are willing to misrepresent scientific claims and distort evidence. Whether or not this is the best interpretation of the various e-mails, they are hardly the only people to hold this belief. At the very least, the ClimateGate e-mails revealed unethical and potentially illegal conduct, so it’s not per se unreasonable for some to think the e-mails could signify something more, and not defamatory to say so. The Defendants further believe that the various investigations into Mann’s work, including the Penn State investigation, were not particularly thorough. Again, they are not alone in this opinion. Even the National Science Foundation found Penn State’s review of Mann’s work to be lacking. The NSF review found no “direct evidence of research misconduct,” but it did conclude there were “several concerns raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used.” That the defendants expressed these views in an particularly outrageous and inappropriate manner hardly seems the sort of thing of which a defamation claim should be made, particularly when involving a public figure. Again, at issue is not whether Mann’s research is sound — or even whether anthropogenic climate change is real (and long-time readers know that I believe it is). The issue is whether this sort of commentary actually rises to defamation. Those who are rooting for Mann — but love to call climate skeptics “shills,” “liars,” and (yes) “frauds” — should be careful what they wish for." article here (or telling a chap he's full of it?")

As you will see in this article Mann has a mountain to climb. In order to prove defamation he has to prove that Simberg and Steyn didn't believe what they said about him.

If he the DC court finds against them Mann has blown a hole in the First Amendment. How much mischief does this chap have to do before his adoring fans a la Phil and EM realise he's a liability?

Merry Christmas Dr. Mann

Jan 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Class act this Michael Mann fellow, who's only achievement is a totally discredited graph Mann's tribute to Dr. Curry

Jan 4, 2017 at 8:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Nice guy Mr Mann

Jan 4, 2017 at 8:53 PM | Registered Commentergeronimo

That the HS disappears if you remove the Bristlecones is a McIntyre meme, and needless to add, wrong. He rarely tells an outright untruth, equally none of his posts that I've read could be described as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

I'd be interested in examples of lies from RC or SKS, however as you've provided precisely none from Dr Mann, expectations are not high.

Jan 4, 2017 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

geronimo 8:19, from your link to an article written by somebody sympathetic to the ignoble cause of Global Warming

"In refusing to dismiss claims against Steyn and Simberg, the D.C. Court of Appeals placed tremendous weight on the fact that Penn State and other institutions investigated Mann and did not find evidence of academic misconduct. Yet it is the alleged inadequacy of Penn State’s investigation that was the focus of the very posts at issue."

Win or lose, Mann will bring further accusations onto people and institutions currently not directly involved with this case. There are many who don't want this to go to court.

Jan 5, 2017 at 12:12 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Heh, gc & ger; there are Friends of the Court and there are Enemies of the Court.

Jan 5, 2017 at 3:35 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Split bark bristlecones and another series crook't the stick. The single most convincing piece of the Piltdown Mann's fundamental chicanery was his creating two reconstructions, one with one and one with the other, and then claimed the modern rise was present even though the offending series were excluded, failing to remark that one or the other was in both. This is personal opinion, but it seems to me even more damning than the excluded, heh, censored, er, files.

Jan 5, 2017 at 3:43 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

er, 'single most convincing piece of evidence'. But see, it's obviously two pieces of evidence. This hall of mirrors unScopes me.

Jan 5, 2017 at 3:45 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Mr Clarke, regardless of the veracity of the so-called “hockey stick graph”, or of the science behind it, could you tell us why Mr Steyn wants to get this court action over and done with? After all, it is he who, by all your accounts, is going to get humiliatingly trounced in the court-room; Mr Mann, who will be piling on the humiliation, and will be well-recompensed in many ways by the victory, has delayed judgement for more than 3 years! What would be your explanation for such bizarre behaviour from both parties concerned?

Jan 5, 2017 at 7:57 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ravishing Rattie

You've hit the nail on the head.

Of course, Mann might be nervous without good reason regarding his prospects of success; and Steyn might be stupidly gung-ho. But it seems clear that Mann lacks confidence in the strength of his case(s) given its/their failure to reach trial in anything like a normal time period.

When (if!) his case(s) get to trial we'll have a better idea regarding all this, but until then, Phil's optimism is at least as gung-ho as that of Steyn.

Jan 5, 2017 at 8:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

These are the trees that Dr Mann (an invention of Roger Hargreaves?) considered useful as temperature proxies Bristlecone Pines

Jan 5, 2017 at 8:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Hey ho, let's uproot those pesky bristlecones, like we did with that troublesome mangrove in the Maldives. We must make the world fit our ever-improving models.

Jan 5, 2017 at 9:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

geronimo & Supertroll

it is surprising that the Green Blob have not turned all remaining Bristle Cone Pines into wood pellets, and had them burnt. Their continued existence appears inconvenient to the truth.

As a country bumpkin, I grew up knowing that tree rings varied in width, depending on the quality of each growing season, and it was a major reason why I trusted Mann's Hockery Stick. I didn't realise that Mann had used dendro-chicanery to straighten the bends in his stick-record.

Jan 5, 2017 at 9:25 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

This thread is about Mark Steyn's chances with Mann's defamation case so I won't labour the hockeystick, except to ponder why papers that have been unanimously condemned for using the wrong statistical methods are still extant. Politics?

Jan 5, 2017 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

New post by Mark Steyn

by Mark Steyn Mann vs Free Speech (about the hounding of Judith Curry)

Jan 5, 2017 at 3:54 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Mann is going to ultimately regret his actions quite a bit. Martin, thanks for posting that link. That Curry was treated as she was with no repercussions is an amazing example of the level of corruption in climate science.

Jan 6, 2017 at 12:43 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Martin. A

Someone should remind Steyn of the Law of Holes.

"if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

The fool has just handed Dr. Mann extra ammunition.

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Mark Hodgson

This is the timeline of Mann v Steyn to date.

Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.

Before the case could go to discovery, CEI and National Review filed a court motion to dismiss it under anti-SLAPP legislation. In July 2013 the judge ruled against this motion.

When the defendants took this to appeal a new judge also denied their motion to dismiss, in January 2014.

The defendants again appealed the decision. On 22 December 2016 the D.C. appeals court ruled that Mann's case against Simberg and Steyn could go ahead.

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

And you see nothing wrong with Mann’s reported response, EM?

You choose some very odd bed-fellows, Entropic man…

Perhaps you can answer my question that Mr Clarke appears to be avoiding or ignoring – why, when the cards are so stacked against him (in your opinion), is Mr Steyn so keen to get the court action over and done with, yet Mr Mann, who has everything to win from it – and win, so you assure us, he will – is delaying so assiduously?

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:56 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

RR, as EM detailed, it was Steyn's codefendents filing an anti-SLAPP motion that delayed proceedings, not Dr Mann.

Jan 6, 2017 at 11:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Someone should remind you EM that the 1st amendment of the USA allows you to say anything if it's what you believe to be true. Mikey has a mountain to climb, what with the Wegman Report, the NAS report, MM05 and the Climategate emails, there will be many people who honestly believe that the MBH hockeystick is fraudulent. If Mikey wins this case will go to the Supreme Court because effectively he will have single-handedly destroyed the right to free speech in the USA. That is why Steyn's case has received so many amicus briefs.

His only hope is to drop the case against Steyn and settle Steyn's claim:


130. Plaintiff [Mann] has engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation designed to chill freedom of speech and to stifle legitimate criticism of Plaintiff’s work. He is currently suing Dr Tim Ball in British Columbia over a hoary bit of word play (“should be in the state pen, not Penn State”) applied to innumerable Pennsylvanians over the years. Having initiated the suit, Dr Mann then stalled the discovery process, so that the BC suit is now entering its third year – Mann’s object being to use the process as a punishment, rather than any eventual trial and conviction. See Mann vs Ball et al, British Columbia VLC-S-S-111913 (2011) (exhibit attached).


131.At the other end of the spectrum, Plaintiff and his Counsel have issued demands that have no basis in law, as they well know – including the preposterous assertion, in response to a parody video by “Minnesotans for Global Warming”, that “Professor Mann’s likeness” is protected from parody and satire...There is a smell to the hockey stick that, in Lady Macbeth's words, “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” - nor all the investigations. And so Dr Mann has determined to sue it into respectability.

132. At the same time, Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia...

133. As with his previous legal threats and actions, Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit for the purpose of wrongfully interfering with critics’ statutorily protected right of advocacy on an issue of great public interest and constitutionally protected free-speech rights.

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories...

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

136. More particularly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit, with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s critics, has targeted Defendant Steyn, who has written articles critical of Plaintiff and his theories.

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

139.The claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of publicinterest and Plaintiff’s lawsuit therefore violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act) ...

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.



142. Plaintiff’s wrongful interference with Defendant Steyn’s constitutionally protected rights of free speech and public expression and his engagement and use of the courts as an instrument of the government to carry out that wrongful interference violates the First Amendment and constitutes a constitutional tort for which Defendant Steyn is entitled to be compensated.

143. As a consequence of Plaintiff’s wrongful act, Defendant Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mark Steyn demands judgment as follows:

a. Dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety;

b. On his First Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

c. On his Second Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. Granting such other and further relief as to the Court seems just."

Mikey's in trouble one way or the other because unless he settles with Steyn he's going to court.

Meanwhile from the Steyn article:

Curry to Mann: "Mark Steyn is formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you."

Steyn: "I despise Michael Mann for many reasons, not least for the damage his peculiar insecurities have done to honest inquiry and scientific integrity. But his disgusting treatment of Dr Curry ranks high on my list. And, however long it takes, I will ensure that her prediction from 2012 comes true."

Jan 6, 2017 at 12:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

"RR, as EM detailed, it was Steyn's codefendents filing an anti-SLAPP motion that delayed proceedings, not Dr Mann."

Hi Phil pleased to see you now understand that Steyn was not part of the appeal.

There is no question Mikey doesn't want to go to court - see Steyn's deposition above - his purpose is to take his opponents through the process at great cost, not to go to trial. As the plaintiff he can do this without having to pay the defendant's costs should he drop the case. The problem he has now is one of the defendants has made a counter claim, so court is inevitable unless he drops his suit and pays Steyn agreed damages.

I'll repeat it for EM in case he missed it in the long posts I've been making. When it gets to trial with Mr. Steyn, to prove defamation he will have to prove that Steyn defamed him by saying something he (Steyn) didn't believe to be true. How's he going to do that?

Steyn 8 June 2015: That's why I answered Michael Mann's discovery requests of me over a year ago, since when he has declined to reciprocate and answer my discovery requests of him. As he put it:

"While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann's claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn's counterclaims.

Ah right. Funny how that works. Judge Weisberg professed to find it all a wee bit ironic:

Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay discovery and argues that, at a minimum, the court should permit him to proceed with discovery against Defendant Steyn... Beyond that, Plaintiff takes the ironic – albeit legally correct – position that he should be able to proceed with discovery against Steyn, but Steyn should be precluded from taking discovery on his counterclaim because Plaintiff's anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss the counterclaim triggers an automatic statutory stay."

Now it's out of the way will we see Mikey proceed with discovery do you think?

Jan 6, 2017 at 12:45 PM | Registered Commentergeronimo

The fool has just handed Dr. Mann extra ammunition.
Jan 6, 2017 at 11:02 AM Entropic man

EM - would you like to explain why you think that? What you say doesn't seem at all obvious to me.

Jan 6, 2017 at 12:58 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A


Firstly, Dr. Mann filedin October 2012. Steyn's co-defendants immediately filed a motion to dismiss and then appealed it twice. Surely the defendants are the ones delaying, not Dr. Mann?

Secondly, Steyn is just digging his hole deeper. You quote him as saying "I despise Michael Mann for many reasons." Dr. Mann's lawyer can now quote it in court as part of these for"actual malice"

Thirdly, did Steyn really file that bullshit you quoted as a legal document? It reads like one of his blog posts

Pity Steyn's lawyers. He may have decided to stop representing himself, but they still have a fool for a client.

Jan 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man