Speaking Of Losing Your Lawyer: Mark Steyn Has Lost His in Mann v. National Review

A print-screen from a recently filed motion (its only two pages long):

One can only speculate.  But Steyn has, as Ezra Levant sometimes does, kept up with the abuse after proceedings have been launched against him.  For example last week on his N.R. blog. Lawyers don't like it when you make their job defending you more difficult by playing an asshole on the Internet.

So it might have something to do with that.

Some background here.

No Wonder Mark Steyn

...is considering a run for the U.S. Senate.  He may need an extra income source if Mike Mann's defamation case against the National Review goes the way it appears to be headed:

"The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits," said a DC Superior Court judge in her latest procedural ruling in the defamation case of Michael Mann v. National Review, et al. "The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that 'actual malice' is present in the [National Review's] conduct." 

This language is somewhat stronger than the previous ruling, which merely suggested that evidence of "actual malice" might be found during discovery (but was not present in the NR piece itself).

Mann Vs. Steyn: Mann Takes A Round

In October of last year, climate scientist Michael Mann filed suit against Mark Steyn and the National Review for a piece Steyn wrote in that publication, and against  the Competitive Enterprise Institute for a  piece that appeared earlier on its blog.  The articles in question described Mann's hockey stick graph, his reconstruction of pre-instrument  temperature records, as "fraudulent" and his work in general as "bogus", so Mann's angry response isn't surprising.

The NR and the CEI filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that their statements are protected speech under the First Amendment, mere “opinion,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” or “fair comment.”.  They also argued that Mann's action was a SLAPP suit.  At the time I wrote:

Frankly, I know of nowhere that a reader, be they careful or careless, could interpret the term "fraudulent" when applied to a scientist's work as implying anything less than that they were guilty of scientific misconduct (the kind of thing they discuss here) or straight out fraud.  I am unaware of any place the term has been used  merely to state that the scientist's work is incorrect. This is quite a bit different than the situation with "blackmail", where there is an established colloquial sense that is weaker than the more precise legal sense (the colloquial sense does not entail criminality where the more legal sense does). 

The court has now ruled that the Mann action did not constitute a SLAPP suit; these are typically launched by large corporate entities against individuals, and this case did not fit that description.  And they rejected the First Amendment arguments for reasons that echo my earlier remarks:

“Given the dictionary definition as well as the common readers’ thought about the use of these words (fraud and fraudulent) the Court finds that these statement taken in context must be viewed as more than honest commentary—particularly when investigations have found otherwise. Considering the numerous articles that characterize Plaintiff’s work as fraudulent, combined with the assertions of fraud and data manipulation, the CEI Defendants have essentially made conclusions based on facts.” [at 15]

The definition of “bogus” in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, inter alia, is “not genuine . . . sham.” BOGUS, MERRIAM-WEBSTER: ONLINE DICTIONARY AND THESAURUS, http://www.merriam-webster.dictionary/bogus.com/  In Plaintiff’s line of work, such an accusation is serious. To call his work a sham or to question his intellect and reasoning is tantamount to an accusation of fraud (taken in the context and knowing that Plaintiff’s work has been investigated and substantiated on numerous occasions).”

So the NR and CEI articles were not opinion, but (mis)statements of fact.  Mann's suits can go forward.

Although they are far from won.  The court docs note, in regards to the National Review case, how difficult actual malice can be to prove under U.S. law. Nevertheless

Some ways to go, then, but a real possibility that Steyn and NR will be out a pantsful of money when this is all over.  A fate richly deserved, IMHO.  And in the case of the CEI, the judge's ruling (not quoted above) suggests that Mann probably will be able to show actual malice.  So they are in even deeper trouble.

PS.  As usual, the court docs are easier to read when you click on the image.

Suck On It Mark Steyn

Climate scientist Michael Mann has finally filed his lawsuit:

Today, the case of Dr. Michael E. Mann vs. The National Review and The Competitive Enterprise Institute was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Dr. Mann, a Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, has instituted this lawsuit against the two organizations, along with two of their authors, based upon their false and defamatory statements accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, Jerry Sandusky. Dr. Mann is being represented by John B. Williams of the law firm of Cozen O'Connor in Washington, D.C. 

Mark Steyn's piece was the one in The National Review.  His defense, as far as I can parse it, is that when he accused Mr. Mann of committing fraud, he was not accusing him of committing fraud.  As I wrote at the time:

Frankly, I know of nowhere that a reader, be they careful or careless, could interpret the term "fraudulent" when applied to a scientist's work as implying anything less than that they were guilty of scientific misconduct (the kind of thing they discuss here) or straight out fraud.  I am unaware of any place the term has been used  merely to state that the scientist's work is incorrect.  This is quite a bit different than the situation with "blackmail", where there is an established colloquial sense that is weaker than the more precise legal sense (the colloquial sense does not entail criminality where the more legal sense does). 

I will try and find out if there is a method of donating to Mr. Mann's cause.  As most good Canadians, I would love to see Mr. Steyn tarred and feathered, but a successful lawsuit is likely to be the best result attainable.

Noted Climate Scientist Michael Mann Threatens Legal Action Against Far Right Scuzzbag With Fake English Accent Mark Steyn

The facebook entry is here, screen-capped below:

I'm not going to link to the defamatory stuff; it compares Mike Mann to Jerry Sandusky.  You can find it through the link.  Its about time somebody sued Mark Steyn.  He's an evil shit, and his writings served as a philosophical foundation for mass murderer  Anders Behring Breivik.  

Tim Ball Sued Again

VANCOUVER, B.C. (CN) - A Pennsylvania State University professor claims climate-change denier Timothy Ball defamed him in an interview published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Winnipeg-based think tank.

Michael Mann, a professor in Penn State's meteorology department and director of the university's Earth Systems Science Center, claims that Ball defamed him when he said that Mann "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State," for his alleged role in the so-called climate gate email tussle.

H/T Eli.  It is pointed out in the comments over at his place that Competitive Enterprise Institute lawyer Chris Horner has offered to provide Mr. Ball legal advice on Canadian defamation law.  Perhaps Mr. Horner doesn't realize its a different country, and all. 

Mann's lawyer is Roger McConchie, who has also been representing climate scientist Andrew Weaver in his various defamation cases.

Mashey on Wegman

Edward Wegman is a professor at George Mason University. In 2006,at the request of U.S. Rep. Joe Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield (both Republicans), he led a small team of statisticians in examining the claims, made by Michael Mann and others, to have reconstructed past temperatures based on various proxy indicators, and to have therefore shown that present temperatures in the planet's Northern hemisphere were "unprecedented" over the past 1,000 or so years. Wegman's report criticized these claims quite harshly and, though Mann's arguments have been largely sustained by mainstream scientists, The Wegman Report has nevertheless been embraced by denialists and members of the Republican Party in the U.S. Congress.

John Mashey is an American computer scientist, best known as the creator of the "Mashey Shell". He has also done some fascinating research on, for example, the demographics of the AGW denialist movement, which I have written about here and here. However, his latest project, appearing on the Deep Climate website, is more important by several orders of magnitude.

Because, in essence, Mashey is accusing the writers of The Wegman Report (whether these were Wegman himself or others on his team) of plagiarism, among a host of other forms of academic mis-conduct:

Of 91 pages, 35 are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning. Its Bibliography is mostly padding, 50% of the references uncited in the text. Many references are irrelevant or dubious. The team relied heavily on a long-obsolete sketch and very likely on various uncredited sources. Much of the work was done by Said (then less than 1 year post-PhD) and by students several years pre-PhD. The (distinguished) 2nd author Scott wrote only a 3-page standard mathematical Appendix. Some commenters were surprised to be later named as serious “reviewers.

In his recommendations, Mashey suggests:

George Mason University ought to investigate many problems, as should several other universities and journals, the US Office of Research Integrity and perhaps the American Statistical Association (ethics issues). At least 4 agencies may have possible fund mis-uses to consider. Some authors or publishers might pursue copyright issues. Congress and the DoJ should investigate the manufacture of the Wegman Report. Possible felonies are covered by the US Code, 18.U.S.C §1001 (misleading Congress), §371 (conspiracy), §4 (misprision), which might involve many more people. The report lists about 30 issues, not all for Wegman Report itself, but including derivations and related activities.

I should emphasize once again that this is serious stuff. For one thing, the accusations leave Mr. Mashey and the folks at DC open to a possible lawsuit. However, the instances of plagiarism, padding, and "dubious" citations are so thoroughly documented (here)that I think their case has been pretty much demonstrated. To give just one example, the Wegman Report bibliography references:

Valentine, Tom (1987) "Magnetics may hold key to ozone layer problems," Magnets, 2(1) 18-26.

It turns out that Mr. Valentine has no relevant scientific background. Furthermore, he has also written about engines that consume no fuel, psychic surgery, and other like topics in addition to the ozone hole. Remember again that The Wegman Report was presented to the U.S. congress as a piece of reputable science.

In any case, Mashey's research is also serious stuff because of its timing. The U.S. Republicans may walk away from November's mid-term elections with control of the House, Senate, or perhaps both chambers, and they have already promised to launch witch-hunts against climate scientists. It would be useful to have Mr. Wegman, should he be on the witness list in one of these show trials, confronted with some of the irregularities in his own research.

For more information, Joe Romm has a good account here.

The State of Mann

Penn State's investigation of Michael Mann's scientific behavior, as brought to light by the hacked CRU emails, has completed its inquiry phase. The report can be found here. Quickly:

1) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?

No substance to allegation.

2) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?

No substance to allegation.

3) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?

No substance to allegation.

4) Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities?

After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee could not make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence to substantiate that Dr. Mann did engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities. It is the case that there has been a public outcry from some quarters that Dr. Mann and his colleagues did deviate from what some observers claim to be standard academic practice. All disciplines and scientific fields work within broad bounds of "accepted scientific" practice that apply to all researchers. However, within different disciplines of science there are additional elements of accepted practice that may be specific to those disciplines and therefore are different from those of other disciplines and fields. For example, accepted practices in a field of pure mathematics, such as number theory, may differ markedly from those in a field such as socio-biology. This is axiomatic. That said, the committee could not make a definitive finding on this allegation for reasons that follow.

[...]


Decision 4. Given that information emerged in the form of the emails purloined from CRU in November 2009, which have raised questions in the public’s mind about Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research activity, given that this may be undermining confidence in his findings as a scientist, and given that it may be undermining public trust in science in general and climate science specifically, the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation.

Worth noting that the committee, recognizing that the Mann case was being used as a proxy for larger questions surrounding the science of AGW, were careful to exclude these latter questions from consideration.

Update: Mann speaks:

"I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.

Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely. Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures."

Roger Pielke Jr.: Honest Broker Or Home Town Ref (For The Other Side)?

If you've ever wondered why the vast majority of Climate Scientists distrust Roger Pielke Jr. in his self-proclaimed role as "Voice of Moderation' or "Honest Broker" for the climate change debate, look here. Attempting to find media bias in the reception of Michael Mann's new paper re. historical hurricane numbers vs. Landea's paper on (roughly) the same topic, he runs a google search and finds 1,264 citations for Mann vs. 1 for Landsea, and insinuates that the press is biased towards AGO alarmist results.

Of course, Michael Mann is also the name of a well-known film director (fittingly enough, he directed Heat back in 1995), and when you strain those references from the Google search, you get about 11 vs 5, a result that is probably due to one paper being published in Nature and the other in The Journal of Climate.