Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Mann v Steyn Dismissed

The court case of Mann vs Steyn has apparently been dismissed. You can read a heavily biased account by an idiotic climate change denier here.

I don't see any need to go over this. The hockey stick is true. It has been confirmed many times now. It is required by basic physics, and can be proved in a tweet.

Mann has gone on to become one of the most important, recognized and honored climate scientists on the planet, while Steyn remains a Rush Limbaugh wannabe, another cheap purveyor of hate and division. The moral verdict is clear.


Entropic man said...

From the nearest thing I could find to a neutral source.


"National Review Not Liable for Mark Steyn's Blog Post About Michael Mann"

"The court doesn't decide whether the column was libelous, but just that the National Review wasn't liable for Steyn's post, because Steyn wasn't an employee. "

"The lawsuit against Steyn and the other defendants appears to still be proceeding. "

It would seem that the judge has given summary judgement in favour of National Review for technical reasons, but the case continues against Steyn.

Entropic man said...

"Summary Judgment

A procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law. Any party may move for summary judgment; it is not uncommon for both parties to seek it. "

David in Cal said...

EM - It was only "prompt" compared to what it might have been. It took something like 8 years IIRC for the National Review to get their dismissal.

IMO Mann doesn't have a winning lawsuit, and he knows it. He's a public figure. The criticism made of him is normal for public figures. I think Mann's suit is just a way of harassing his critics.


Layzej said...

DiC: IMO Mann doesn't have a winning lawsuit, and he knows it. He's a public figure.

Yup. You can pretty much say whatever you want about a public figure in the USA.

DiC: I think Mann's suit is just a way of harassing his critics.

It's not unlikely that this was a SLAPP suit. Likewise, Steyn didn't have a case in his original article. He simply slung innuendo and insults. His attacks were just a way of harassing and silencing scientists.

It's all politics. Meanwhile the science advances.

Here's a list of 35+ reconstructions since the year 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

Thomas said...

David, I'm afraid your tweet isn't that good. It assumes that CO2 is the only factor affecting temperature and that it has a significant influence, something you can't derive from "basic physics". Decades of climate research suggest it's true that the current warming is caused by CO2, but that's far from "basic physics".

Phil Clarke said...

This ruling says precisely zero about whether or not NR defamed Dr. Mann.

For a case involving the libel of a public figure to succeed the Plaintiff must show the alleged libel was made with 'actual malice'. The defence was that as nobody at NR signed off on the piece there could not have been any mailce, the counter claim was that Steyn was employee of the Review and so his malice could be imputed onto them. The counter-counter claim was the Steyn was an independent contractor and so the above did not apply. The Court has upheld that claim.

You cannot legitimately draw any conclusions about the integrity of Dr Mann's research, much less about AGW from this rather narrow, technical decision.

Entropic man said...

The public attacks on Michael Mann by hockey stick deniers have dried up since Mann v Steyn began.

I wonder why.

Layzej said...

I'm sure that the suit played a part, but the attacks were becoming more and more ridiculous as the work was validated again and again by other teams using an array of different data sets and methods.

JimB said...

Then why are we not roasting in Hell by now?

Entropic man said...


Climate change is not like shooting yourself in the foot, when the stupidity and the pain happen close together.

It is more like smoking, where you get the fun now and the lung cancer later.

This allows you to drive your pickup truck or run your coal-fired power station now and delude yourself that there will be no long term consequences.

Jack Dale said...

The lawsuit against National Review was dismissed. It continues against Steyn and CEI.