An Inspiring Day :: SteynOnline
"But my white-shoe lawyers in the Michael Mann suit charged half-a-million bucks for a year in which everything they filed on my behalf they lost. Or, rather, I lost. The last thing I heard from them, in late 2013, was a proposal with regards to billing rates for 2015. That doesn't suggest they were planning on reversing their losing streak any time soon. I fired them on Boxing Day, and, when shortly afterwards they filed a formal notice of withdrawal with the court, there were no fewer than five listed lawyers, one of whom I'd never even met.
So, when Popehat says Mark Steyn has a fool for a client, I would humbly suggest that for over a year those five lawyers had a fool for a client. I was like most foreigners around the world - all I knew about American "justice" was that it was ruinously expensive and that it took up years of your life. As someone who loves America, I carelessly assumed that there must be more to it than that, only to have every single cliche about the system resoundingly confirmed."
Sunday
57 minutes ago
Posts
20 comments:
You should have retracted your false and libelous "Sandusky" article when you had the chance. Now you will be paying for that bit of hubris for a very long time.
Drewski, it was notlibelous and it was not false. It was a metaphor. Only a complete neurotic imbecile would misintperpret it to say Mann was being called a Pedophile. And much worse can and is said about other public figures. America is still about free speech. Mann is ery likely the one who is going to regret this. His work is not holding up well, and he is creeping out even his peers. But we can guess you know that first hand.
Anonymous
I was referring to Steyn saying Mann "tortured data" and his original hockey stick was fraudulent. Stating that a scientist committed fraud, particularly after a half-dozen studies emphatically stated that this particular work was conducted both rigorously and honestly, is libelous as Steyn will no doubt find out for himself in court. Steyn was given the chance to retract the article but, instead, he upped the ante and now he has bet his financial and professional future.
I have no idea what your are talking about regarding Mann's work is not holding up well and that he is creeping people out. Perhaps you are getting your baseless info from low-class blog sites?
11 new hockey sticks have been added to the team since 2002 and some go back in time even further and use a wide-ranging data set from more locations. These new hockey sticks have been done by dozens of scientists from other countries by using Mann's identical data and code, or completely different data and code or the same data and different code.
Seems that, in the academic world, Mann's stock is rising.
Drewski,
Then it is a matter of opinion, because studies have been done which show that Mann utilized poor and misleading techniques to support his HS. That red noise can be pumped through his algorithm and produce a HS. That studies have been done showing his stats are misleading. That he hides declines and the MWP. As far as low-class, I leave that to you. You seem expert on it on it "Drewski".
One study by McInyre (a statistician in the mining industry) said that Mann's code could not separate out noise from signal and would create a hockey stick shape regardless of the data fed to it. The criticism of Mann's data came from other sources and centered around Mann's use of tree rings from a particular wood although this one was only one of the several proxies used in the original hockey stick.
Because of these criticisms and because of climategate which featured some of Mann's emails, numerous reviews were undertaken of Mann's work by the British Parliament, the US Congress, multiple universities and committees and by 3 independent newspapers.
In the case of Michael Mann, NO SCIENTIFIC FRAUD was found in any of these EIGHT (8) official investigations or newspaper investigations.
Yet Steyn wrote that Mann's work was fraudulent. Mann gave Steyn the opportunity to retract the statement, but Steyn doubled down and now he finds himself in court and on his own.
BTW, you haven't provided any evidence to your statement: "His work is not holding up well, and he is creeping out even his peers". Is that because none actually exists?
Drewski,Thousands of people have called Mann's work 'fraudulent'.
He is a high profile public figure, and like all other public figures gets to put up with opinions about him and his work that are not flattering and are even mean or vile. Steyn describes Mann's 'work' in ways that many, many other commentators have said before and are still saying. So keep giong down the dead end path of helping your pal. Run even harder at that dead end ahead of you and tell us how it feels when this bogus, pretnetious case either falls apart, or worse for you, Mann is forced to stop hiding his publicly funded work.
And the claim, by the way that he was found not have committed fraud is phony as well.
Ciao, Drewski
....sorry Drewski, hit submit to quick.
As to his standing, you read your news, I'll read the real news. All the best trying to criminalize name calling and differences of opinion.
Anonymous,
"Thousands of people have called Mann's work 'fraudulent'".
Is that really your defense?
It was for that very reason that eight official investigations have been conducted linked either directly or indirectly to Mann. These investigations involved both the US congress and the UK Parliament and each nation's top scientific organizations as well as a number of other official and unofficial investigations that were conducted over years.
And, to repeat, Mann was found to have conducted no scientific fraud.
As Steyn and the National Review were some of the loudest voices of the thousands whose criticism prompted these inquiries, they should have been aware of the results. Steyn and National Review chose to ignore these conclusions and continued to brand Mann's work as a fraud.
Now Steyn gets to have his day in court to tell the judge why his opinion is more truthful and factual than either the National Academy of Sciences or the National Science Foundation.
BTW Anonymous,
You have yet to tell us where you get your "real" news from that shows Mann's work is falling apart or that he is creeping out his peers.
Personally, my news comes from the conclusion from all those official and unofficial inquiries. They are easily found in Scientific American and other science journals.
Drewski,
As to defense, yeah. A generally, openly discussed opinion about a well known, controversial, famously tortuous person is probably a pretty good defense. My bet is Mann mostly made his move because of the so-called science defense fund and he simply wants to shut down debate, because he knows he can never actually win in an open fair debate. Instead he seems to rely on name calling and seeking to hurt his peers and shutting down debate. And of course suing and using legal intimidation when he is angered, which from the record, seems to be nearly all the time. Oh, and tossing out wild evidence free accusations of vast conspiracies by dark forces gathered around him.
You seem to be sort of a typical true believer. You simply repeat your talking points. I read everything, but I have not disengaged my critical thinking skills. Unlike, sadly, so many in this issue. You should know the eight reviews did not say what you claim they did. Most were convened because of the questionable behaviors of Mann and so many other climate scientists disclosed in climategate. Few who read the reports thinks they were more than white washes, often done by people who were heavily conflicted and compromised. More than a few prominent scientists had strongly negative reactions to the behaviors the climategate disclosures revealed. And in fact Mann's techniques were criticized in at least some of the reports, you might recall.
Since the IPCC current report shows CS is not as expected, and since we are now far into the
pause, I am thinking you are the one who should be wondering about your news sources. You frankly sound like a certain balding fat over hyped, self promoting scientist I could think of. If so, you can keep telling yourself how wonderful you are. I am sure Lysenko, the Piltdown Man 'discoverer', and of course the growing culture of research ethical failures would find this very inspirational:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683893/
In particular I find this part fascinating:
"Wrongdoing in research is relatively common with nearly all research-intensive institutions confronting cases over the past 2 years. Only 13% of respondents indicated that a case involved termination, despite the fact that more than 50% of the cases reported by RIOs involved FFP. This means that most investigators who engage in wrongdoing, even serious wrongdoing, continue to conduct research at their institutions."
I wonder who could be a poster boy for this situation?
But I am done. I have had to work around venomous snakes and scorpions before, but never like to tempt fate. I would say 'best wishes', but that might be less than honest.
Anonymous,
I have noticed that you have yet to state where you get your real news from particularly as it relates to Michael Mann.
I also noticed that you made this statement: "Oh, and tossing out wild evidence free accusations of vast conspiracies by dark forces. . . " and then you immediately start on an evidence-free rant about white washes done by unnamed people who are "heavily compromised" and then on to "prominent" scientists with strongly negative reactions to the emails, but who these scientists are and how it relates to the hockey stick, you fail to mention. Isn't our conversation supposed to be about the hockey stick?
You continue on to say that the reports criticize Mann but you fail to say how and you state Mann's techniques are flawed as if that is tantamount to fraud (it is not). Your cherry on top was trying to link a report by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health into a discussion on paleoclimate.
It is good to see that you haven't disengaged your ctitical thinking skills.
>sigh<
So much to say, but I think your snake is hoping for a bite so I will just let you rattle away, "Drewski".
Keep telling yourself that those eight reviews said what you claim. You seem to need to hear that rather badly.
Anonymous,
I have an open mind -- all you have to do is point out where an official inquiry has stated that Mann's hockey stick was fraudulent. Then Steyn will have a slam dunk in court and should be able to counter sue for millions.
Easy eh?
I am a bit disappointed, however, that I was never able to find out where to get "real news" about Michael Mann.
"Drewski",
Always leave 'em wanting more.
And do keep telling yourself that 'fraudulent' can only be used the way you wish.
Anonymous,
More?
At this point you have left exactly zero -- no "actual" anything -- no references, no citations, no names, no details, no "real news".
Unless, of course, you wish to count that report from the National Library of Medicine.
And, as for "fraudulent" -- that is now for the courts to decide because Steyn chose not to retract his article.
Actually I offerd a citation that you simply chose to ignore. Good luck playing your game. You loser.
Anonymous,
Did you have another citation other than one from medicine? Sorry, but I can't find it -- can you repost?
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_versus_the_press.php?page=1
Just for you, professor.
Anonymous,
Interesting, but what is your point? It is not relevant to this case as during discovery, Steyn will get access to anything at all that goes to the charge of libel - and vice versa for Mann.
And in regards to your report about medical research, it had to do with impropriety due to lax oversight which would be the polar opposite of the hockey stick study that is arguably the most scrutinized study in the history of science.
And thus the reason Steyn is being sued for libel.
Michael Mann was never exonerated:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/climate-change-michael-mann-hides-the-decline-in-reports-he-says-exonerate-him/
Post a Comment