“Mark Steyn makes motion to dismiss Mann’s libel claim“ (201-01-24). Anthony Watts suggests that “noted human righters activist” right-wing zealot Mark Steyn’s defamation of Dr. Michael Mann was an act of moral bravery. Don’t block the freedom of speech “sunlight” that only right-wing demagogues can give! Also, Steyn’s motion to dismiss the libel claim is NOT trying to wriggle off the hook of his own actions.
Steyn’s defence lawyers ditching him is just proof that there’s no more defending needed, right? As citizen-lawyer Anthony says eyes firmly locked in the mirror, that;
Mann would be a fool to pursue the case further, but then again, his ego is often so large that I surmise the state department of transportation must be forced to put out orange traffic cones ahead of him when he travels, so I doubt it will happen.
Strip away all the posturing, self-serving invocation of free speech, rabid contempt for legal process and the specific judges ruling in this matter and what’s left?
Steyn, and Anthony’s readers, think that Dr. Mann is a “public figure” and therefore they have the right to fabricate and spread any utter bullshit about him or his repeatedly confirmed research that they please. And oh, do they please.
My take on this is that Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have designed their attacks on climate science to take advantage of every legal fig leaf they can pull together to shield them from responsibility for their lies and misrepresentations. Now that they’ve been caught they are complaining hypocritically about the legal system that was their best weapon. Sucks to be them, but maybe they can scuttle back under their rock.
That Anthony Watts and company are convinced Steyn and friends should be able slip off the hook on a technicality says much about their own ethical foundations.
So how did it turn out? Steyn’s motion was rejected by the judge.
“For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.
Wott's Up With That? 
Thanks, Ben: You just reminded me to toss another $10 towards this..
climatesciencedefensefund.org
[I thought that was all taken care of by the secret communist world government? – Ben]
Pingback: Another Week in the Ecological Crisis, January 26, 2014 – A Few Things Ill Considered
Ben hope you don’t mind me tossing this in here. You see, Ben Weingarten wrote an off the wall article in “The Blaze” that really underscores the right-wing’s acceptance of repeatedly using verifiable lies when it comes to their cause and I decided to do a review of his article. You may find it interesting reading.
cheers,
Peter
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
“Surely you’re joking Mr. Weingarten!”
“If you are trying to understand the “right wing” approach to learning about critically important climate science issues and the concept of an “even playing field” – here’s an article that highlights the right-wing’s contempt for a civil and honest exchange of information. It relates to Dr. Mann’s lawsuit against author Mark Steyn, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for claiming he’s guilty of scientific fraud. In response to another ruling in the plaintiff’s favor, one Ben Weingarten wrote an artfully crafted plea for sympathy, wherein he transforms the perpetrator(s) into the victim(s). But, do his claims stand up?
Here’s my review, along with links to further information. …”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Surely you’re joking Mr. Weingarten!
[He’s a disgrace to the name!- Ben]
I’ve also decided to contribute to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund by buying a nice t-shirt for $50. If you want, you can get the shirt for $30. Some comments about this affair don’t seem to understand the difference between critiquing a scientific conclusion and accusing a scientist of fraud. I guess that is what happens when people are too lazy or incompetent to understand a scientific article. I relish a good scientific controversy (especially in peer-reviewed literature) but fraud is both rare and scary in science.
It’s interesting to see who else pays homage to William F. Buckley Jr. while taking critical aim at Mark Steyn, Rich Lowry and the National Review:
[Sloppy partisan “reporting” caught red-handed and scrambling for a fig leaf to hide behind. – Ben]
I’d say the lawyers in question should slam Anthony a defamation suit.
Ben, do you have any information on Mike Mann’s other law suit i.e. the one against Tim Ball?
I haven’t seen anything but John O’Sullivan and Hans Schrueder in a review of Tim Ball’s new book “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” claim the following:
This quote can be found on the Principia Scientific Institute web site. Knowing O’Sullivan’s propensity for dishonesty I very much doubt what he has said but you never know.
[The same O’Sullivan that breathlessly informed us a year ago that President Obama’s impeachment had begun? Har, har. Not sure where the libel suit stands but, as Toronto’s Mayor Rob Ford has discovered to his chagrin, Canadian libel standards have been restricted in recent years so Ball might be able to skip behind the “humorous remark” defence. – Ben]
Steyn is now counter-suing Mike Mann for $10 million:
Click to access 6109.pdf
It makes for a hilarious read especially this sentence:
[Steyn seems to delight in proving that he’s an idiot. Maybe he think’s he’s Al Pacino? – Ben]
it is March already.
[? – Ben]
Ian Forrester on 2014/02/22 at 11:45 AM said:
Steyn is now counter-suing Mike Mann for $10 million:
Click to access 6109.pdf
========================================================
OK, I’m no lawyer and I know that they ask for 10 million at the end of that document, but why in the world is a:
“DEFENDANT STEYN’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO AMENDED COMPLAINT”
(that is a motion entered in an ongoing lawsuit) being called a “counter-suing”?