Mark Steyn v Michael Mann

anonymoose said:
?
Click to expand...

Sorry I was going to come back but forgot! This trial has been going on for over 12 years, on and off, Mann is a total fuckwit and ought to be put out to pasture.

Now, you have heard, as part of Mr. Williams' three worst emails [Mann] was apparently sent in by the people motivated to send him emails. And the third was, "You are like Paterno, a true loser." Joe Paterno was star football coach at Penn State University. In fact, they still love him there. They want to put his statue back up. They took it down after the Sandusky thing.

"You are like Paterno, a true loser." That is the best they have got for how people have responded to Michael E. Mann. And Mr. Williams wants you, ladies and gentlemen, to believe that somehow getting an email saying you're a true loser is a cause of action in a lawsuit in America.

Mr. Mann says far worse things every moment of the day. He doesn't stop for public holidays. So, here's how he spent the Martin Luther King Day weekend, tweeting about one of the defense witnesses in this case, my fellow Canadian, my fellow Torontonian, Stephen McIntyre, whom you will be hearing from in a few days.

[Mann] says, "In the Hockey Stick and the climate wars, I show how Steve McIntyre played hide the Hockey Stick. There's a disturbing connection with the bad stats used to support early theories of white supremacy."

So according to Michael E. Mann, thinking his Hockey Stick is wrong makes you a white supremacist. Now, Mr. McIntyre, as you will see in the coming days, is a perfectly respectable fellow. He's been published in the same peer-reviewed journal as Mr. Mann, Geophysical Research Letters. So, at the very least, Mann is failing in his duty to the National Academy of Sciences to treat a fellow individual in the scientific enterprise, "collegially and with respect."

By the way, to assert in public, on the eve of trial, that an opposing witness is a white supremacist would, in Steve McIntyre's country, which happens to be my country, the dominion of Canada, be regarded as witness tampering and what we call, in Canada, England, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Nigeria, Kenya, Papua New Guinea, would be called perverting the cause of justice.

I have no idea – D.C. law is a great mystery to me in many ways, so I have no idea whether you have such a thing down here. But if you do, Mr. Mann would now be looking at a spell behind bars for that tweet. He's doing that all day long. He's essentially an activist, a tweeter, a blogger, for whom a couple of scientific papers from the end of the last century provide cover for his activism.

But in the crazy world of Michael E. Mann, a highly technical disagreement about Mann's use of principal components analysis is the equivalent of burning a cross on your lawn. This isn't a scientific argument. This is just viciously stupid name calling. And more to the point, this is how Mr. Mann carries on day in, day out, as anyone who follows his Twitter feed knows.

It's the statements at issue in this trial, all well-argued by Mr. Simberg – and Ms. Weatherford was quite right to say that, as she put it, Rand is right. Rand was right about what he wrote. But if those statements are defamatory of Michael Mann, why is Michael Mann's statement not defamatory of Stephen McIntyre?

Mr. Mann wants a world where no one can criticize him, but he can damn anyone he cares to as a white supremacist, a racist, a homophobe, whatever. This is extremely weird behavior from a scientist, as even his coauthors on the famous Hockey Stick paper, such as Dr. Bradley, have conceded over the years, which is why so many scientists around the world want nothing to do with him. He's a classic example of the guy who can dish it out but can't take it.

Read more: https://www.steynonline.com/14039/opening-statement
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top