Mark Steyn
is complaining that the defamation case launched against him by climate scientist Mike Mann has taken forever. Well, on the face of it, the first response must be that he should suck it up. In Canada, at least, waiting four years for a defamation case to unfold is pretty standard; I doubt the U.S. court system is significantly less clogged. And of course much of the delay
is a result Mark's various stalling tactics after the initial judgements went against him, tactics which included the promotion of arguments so novel as to be, as they say, "unknown to law".
Also, there's this from his request for an expedited hearing:
Many of Steyn's expert witnesses are emeritus professors and comparatively advanced in years, being of an age and eminence that enables them to stand against the bullying and intimidation that prevails in climate science. Therefore, the passage of time is not an unimportant thing. Indeed, one of Steyn's proposed witnesses has, in fact, died while this interlocutory appeal has been with the appellate court.
I've been trying to figure out who the old dead scientist might be. Maybe Bob Carter or Bill Gray. If anyone knows for sure, please say in the comments. In any case, Steyn only confirms what
John Mashey showed several years back, which is that deniers with scientific credentials tend to skew towards the elderly end of the demographic scale.
Finally, you don't have to read Mark's brief if you don't want to, but it sounds as though he wrote it himself, or took a draft from his lawyer and spiced it up with Steyn-style rhetorical flourishes. Its best to look at it as a fund-raising tool more than a legal document. And its worth noting that judges typically don't approve when you use the legal system to win in the court of public opinion. Sometimes they make this fact known in their judgements against you.
