"Arctic ice. 2007 is nothing more than a cherry-pick, start at 2006 or 2008 and the claim evaporates. Again, the data are consistent with a continuing steady decline."

May 31, 2020 at 11:57 AM Phil Clarke

What happens if you go back to the loss of ice that inspired the Franklin Expedition to look for the North West Passage?

I could always try Nigel Persaud ;-)

No, I have a better idea: I could pose as 'Smokey', sockpuppet par excellance. Smokey's real name is Dave Stealey (aka dbs, aka dbstealey and a few others), a moderator on a certain blog. While for years his Smokey sockpuppet posted copiously in comment threads, strenuously supporting the blog party line, moderator dbStealey would ensure that counterarguments were snipped, delayed or just deleted. Smokey always got the last word.

The blog in question has a policy deploring sockpuppetry and states:

If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion by people that stand behind their words.

It is hard to imagine a clearer example of a double standard.

Clarke, bet you are just such fun at parties!

"It is hard to imagine a clearer example of a double standard.
Jun 1, 2020 at 12:20 AM Phil Clarke"

What is Climate Science going to do about the lack of quality control in the Peer Review process?

I should keep trying until I find a form of words that Homewood deems printable? Odd form of debate.He's a disgrace.

Charly - just thought I'd share an example of 'moral poverty' in the climate debate ;-)

Do we realise just how much time and effort we squander on commenting on Philobollocks. Eventually potentially useful debates and information exchanges are swamped by throwing turds at each other, Phil’s intentions fulfilled.

"Do we realise just how much time and effort we squander on commenting on Philobollocks. Eventually potentially useful debates and information exchanges are swamped by throwing turds at each other, Phil’s intentions fulfilled.

Jun 1, 2020 at 10:36 AM AK"

But his links and references are a wonderful tool for plotting out the interconnections between different parts of the international web of Hockey Teamsters, and the "science" they depend on to build their own salaries and egos.

The JCU v Peter Ridd scandal is significant for the survival of the Save the "Great Barrier Reef Industry", a vital part of Australian Academic Funding.

It is time to put Munday's Ocean Acidification baloney to rest. Another from JCU targeting Peter Ridd.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/analysis-challenges-slew-studies-claiming-ocean-acidification-alter-fish-behavior

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/23/getting-expensive-for-mann/

"Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court. He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.

Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of June 2020 hereby
ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion for Payment of Expenses is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are awarded the expenses in connection with the motion to compel discovery in the amount of 9588.64.

June 22 Decision
This is on top off losing the motion to by defendants last month to compel discovery.

ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED IN PART; it is further

ORDERED that discovery responses are limited to the period of 2007 to the present; it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff produce all responsive documents to Requests 1-3, 7-8, and Requests 10-11 in CEI Defendants’ Second Set of Requests for Production. It is further Page 5 of 5 ORDERED that Plaintiff provide the information requested in Interrogatories 2-4 in CEI Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories and Interrogatories 22-23, 25, 26, 29, and 31 in CEI
Defendants’ Second Set of Interrogatories.

May 5 Decision"

Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court. He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review.

Watts should work on his reading comprehension.

Jun 25, 2020 at 12:22 AM Phil Clarke
People are starting to comprehend Mann and Hockey Teamsters. Not trustworthyy.

Phil, Watts posted that "Michael Mann has lost a motion in the DC Superior Court. He will now be responsible for the majority of legal costs for discovery in his perpetual libel suits against Steyn and the National Review."

I can't see any mention of Steyn in the Order made by the Court, so that extent you are correct, I think, but may I suggest that your rush to defend Mann suggested limitations on your own reading comprehension. Watts did not say that Mann has to pay the majority of the defendants' legal costs; rather that he has to pay the majority of legal costs for discovery, which is what the orders relate to. That is normal in litigation (costs follow the event, as lawyers say), and to that extent I think Watts has reported the import of the Court Order accurately.

What I find curious is that from reading the Order for discovery in full, it seems that this is not simply a case of Mann dragging his feet and the Defendants losing patience; rather he actively opposed the Order for discovery. I cannot think of a case in my experience where a Plaintiff/claimant has ever done that, since it's usually the Plaintiff who wants to force an early settlement or get to trial asap, while the Defendants are usually the ones with an interest in delay.

What's your explanation for such behaviour?

 Watts did not say that Mann has to pay the majority of the defendants' legal costs; rather that he has to pay the majority of legal costs for discovery, which is what the orders relate to. That is normal in litigation (costs follow the event, as lawyers say), and to that extent I think Watts has reported the import of the Court Order accurately.

Nope. Mann has to pay the costs of contesting the discovery order, that is, the legal cost of litigating and contesting the discovery motion, less than £10K, (around £8k) which doesn't buy much US lawyer time. It says nothing about the costs of discovery itself, which has not begun yet. WUWT is completely wrong again.

Accordingly, it is this 22nd day of June 2020 hereby ORDERED that Defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute’s and Rand Simberg’s Motion for Payment of Expenses is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants are awarded the expenses in connection with the motion to compel discovery in the amount of 9588.64.

For some reason Watts did not mention a previous decision by the same judge, ruling on some earlier counterclaims from Steyn:

Since Steyn’s special motion to dismiss and Rule 12(b)(6) motion were denied on the grounds that a reasonable jury is likely to find in favor of Mann in his defamation lawsuit, Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn is far from frivolous or groundless

Accordingly, it is hereby this 29th day of August 2019, hereby ORDERED that Counter-plaintiff Mark Steyn’s counterclaims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. “

(my bold)

LOL.

What's your explanation for such behaviour?

As I think I've said before, I have not been following the case that closely and have no special insights into either party's motives. FWIW I agree, this is beginning to look like Bleak House.

Whatever the outcome you can bet people on whichever persausion will read too much into what is, after all, just a libel case.

"Whatever the outcome you can bet people on whichever persausion will read too much into what is, after all, just a libel case."

Yes, just as "hide the decline" was only a bit of tidying up of a diagram.

Ouch! Phil, you're right. Mann has only to pay the costs of opposing the discovery motion, not of the whole discovery process itself (at this stage, at least, depending on the final outcome of the case). That'll teach me to comment in a hurry!

On the other hand, your side-step of Mann's motivation in opposing discovery is neat, but not convincing. I can see no reason why a PLAINTIFF would oppose discovery, other than concern at what discovery might reveal. As I said earlier, it is always in the plaintiff's interests (not always in the interests of a defendant) to move a case on to trial - unless the motivation is to punish the defendant by the process and to discourage others from daring to criticise, rather than a desire to have a trial.

This is the second prominent such case where Mann has dragged his feet, that I am aware of (his case in Canada was thrown out because of unconscionable delay). This is not normal behaviour by a genuine plaintiff keen to see his reputation vindicated and to receive his award of libel damages.

Hockey Teamsters should sue Mann for bringing their careers in to disrepute

The year 2007 does not seem immediately significant, but it does include Mann's earnings before ClimateGate in 2009, and all the subsequent correspondence, during which time he was a full time employee and able to earn extra money that would bring credit to his Employer.

With Discovery resolved in this Case instigated by Mann, there should be no reasons for Mann to keep delaying any others, any more