Right, St, the turns and twists of Scopes are Byzantine. I expect as much from this Crook't Stick Affair.
==============

"Geronimo,

Is there a single McIntyre Myth you haven't swallowed hook, line and sinker? The strip-bark/bristlecone/foxtails myth was busted by Wahl and Ammann, or if you prefer something for the general reader, Mann's book deals with it."

Mmnn. I have never caught Steve McIntyre out in a lie, whereas realclimate.com and SkS are constantly lying, or should I say twisting the truth, for the "wannabe like thems" on the web to come out slugging.

Phil you say Wahl and Amman debunked McIntyre on the bristlecone pine issue, actually I've never quoted Steve, I've always quoted Graybill and Idso, have Wahl and Ammann debunked them as well? I doubt it. I don't know what they debunked, but I do know what G&I said in their paper.

"Our research supports the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 fertilization on natural tree growth has been occurring from at least the mid- late- 19th century. This enhanced growth is most apparent in the high elevation supalpine conefers where newly fixed carbon is primarily allocated to cambial growth rather than other parts of the tree, as in the case of the strip-bark growth forms sampled here. These results, in tandem with studies of changes in the amplitude of the annual CO2 cycle cited by Idso(1991a, b), also suggest that growth increases du to CO2 fertilization are widespread. That they have not been commonly detected as ringwidth increases is likely due to the fact that most trees do not exhibit the form of growth behavior of those sampled in this study."

Figure 5 deals with bristlecone pines.

I've suggested it before, but you'd be as well going back to the original material rather than quoting activist scientists. And please, if you wouldn't mind stop parrotting realclimate, you're probably the only person who reads that site.

As an interesting aside (not for you Phil), there is some concern in US legal circles about this particular judgement.

"Whether or not Mann’s work shows all that he has claimed is not the question, for the First Amendment protects robust discussion and debate of scientific matters and the freedom to express wrong-headed opinions in inartful ways. The Defendants believe the ClimateGate e-mails showed that Mann and others are willing to misrepresent scientific claims and distort evidence. Whether or not this is the best interpretation of the various e-mails, they are hardly the only people to hold this belief. At the very least, the ClimateGate e-mails revealed unethical and potentially illegal conduct, so it’s not per se unreasonable for some to think the e-mails could signify something more, and not defamatory to say so. The Defendants further believe that the various investigations into Mann’s work, including the Penn State investigation, were not particularly thorough. Again, they are not alone in this opinion. Even the National Science Foundation found Penn State’s review of Mann’s work to be lacking. The NSF review found no “direct evidence of research misconduct,” but it did conclude there were “several concerns raised about the quality of the statistical analysis techniques that were used.” That the defendants expressed these views in an particularly outrageous and inappropriate manner hardly seems the sort of thing of which a defamation claim should be made, particularly when involving a public figure. Again, at issue is not whether Mann’s research is sound — or even whether anthropogenic climate change is real (and long-time readers know that I believe it is). The issue is whether this sort of commentary actually rises to defamation. Those who are rooting for Mann — but love to call climate skeptics “shills,” “liars,” and (yes) “frauds” — should be careful what they wish for." article here (or telling a chap he's full of it?")

As you will see in this article Mann has a mountain to climb. In order to prove defamation he has to prove that Simberg and Steyn didn't believe what they said about him.

If he the DC court finds against them Mann has blown a hole in the First Amendment. How much mischief does this chap have to do before his adoring fans a la Phil and EM realise he's a liability?

Merry Christmas Dr. Mann

Class act this Michael Mann fellow, who's only achievement is a totally discredited graph Mann's tribute to Dr. Curry

That the HS disappears if you remove the Bristlecones is a McIntyre meme, and needless to add, wrong. He rarely tells an outright untruth, equally none of his posts that I've read could be described as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/11/steve-mcintyre-down-in-the-quo/

I'd be interested in examples of lies from RC or SKS, however as you've provided precisely none from Dr Mann, expectations are not high.

geronimo 8:19, from your link to an article written by somebody sympathetic to the ignoble cause of Global Warming

"In refusing to dismiss claims against Steyn and Simberg, the D.C. Court of Appeals placed tremendous weight on the fact that Penn State and other institutions investigated Mann and did not find evidence of academic misconduct. Yet it is the alleged inadequacy of Penn State’s investigation that was the focus of the very posts at issue."

Win or lose, Mann will bring further accusations onto people and institutions currently not directly involved with this case. There are many who don't want this to go to court.

Heh, gc & ger; there are Friends of the Court and there are Enemies of the Court.
==========

Split bark bristlecones and another series crook't the stick. The single most convincing piece of the Piltdown Mann's fundamental chicanery was his creating two reconstructions, one with one and one with the other, and then claimed the modern rise was present even though the offending series were excluded, failing to remark that one or the other was in both. This is personal opinion, but it seems to me even more damning than the excluded, heh, censored, er, files.
================

er, 'single most convincing piece of evidence'. But see, it's obviously two pieces of evidence. This hall of mirrors unScopes me.
===============

Ravishing Rattie

You've hit the nail on the head.

Of course, Mann might be nervous without good reason regarding his prospects of success; and Steyn might be stupidly gung-ho. But it seems clear that Mann lacks confidence in the strength of his case(s) given its/their failure to reach trial in anything like a normal time period.

When (if!) his case(s) get to trial we'll have a better idea regarding all this, but until then, Phil's optimism is at least as gung-ho as that of Steyn.

These are the trees that Dr Mann (an invention of Roger Hargreaves?) considered useful as temperature proxies Bristlecone Pines

Hey ho, let's uproot those pesky bristlecones, like we did with that troublesome mangrove in the Maldives. We must make the world fit our ever-improving models.

geronimo & Supertroll

it is surprising that the Green Blob have not turned all remaining Bristle Cone Pines into wood pellets, and had them burnt. Their continued existence appears inconvenient to the truth.

As a country bumpkin, I grew up knowing that tree rings varied in width, depending on the quality of each growing season, and it was a major reason why I trusted Mann's Hockery Stick. I didn't realise that Mann had used dendro-chicanery to straighten the bends in his stick-record.

This thread is about Mark Steyn's chances with Mann's defamation case so I won't labour the hockeystick, except to ponder why papers that have been unanimously condemned for using the wrong statistical methods are still extant. Politics?

Mann is going to ultimately regret his actions quite a bit. Martin, thanks for posting that link. That Curry was treated as she was with no repercussions is an amazing example of the level of corruption in climate science.

Martin. A

Someone should remind Steyn of the Law of Holes.

"if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging".

The fool has just handed Dr. Mann extra ammunition.

Mark Hodgson

This is the timeline of Mann v Steyn to date.

Mann's lawyer filed the defamation lawsuit in October 2012.

Before the case could go to discovery, CEI and National Review filed a court motion to dismiss it under anti-SLAPP legislation. In July 2013 the judge ruled against this motion.

When the defendants took this to appeal a new judge also denied their motion to dismiss, in January 2014.

The defendants again appealed the decision. On 22 December 2016 the D.C. appeals court ruled that Mann's case against Simberg and Steyn could go ahead.

RR, as EM detailed, it was Steyn's codefendents filing an anti-SLAPP motion that delayed proceedings, not Dr Mann.

Someone should remind you EM that the 1st amendment of the USA allows you to say anything if it's what you believe to be true. Mikey has a mountain to climb, what with the Wegman Report, the NAS report, MM05 and the Climategate emails, there will be many people who honestly believe that the MBH hockeystick is fraudulent. If Mikey wins this case will go to the Supreme Court because effectively he will have single-handedly destroyed the right to free speech in the USA. That is why Steyn's case has received so many amicus briefs.

His only hope is to drop the case against Steyn and settle Steyn's claim:

"FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

130. Plaintiff [Mann] has engaged in a pattern of abusive litigation designed to chill freedom of speech and to stifle legitimate criticism of Plaintiff’s work. He is currently suing Dr Tim Ball in British Columbia over a hoary bit of word play (“should be in the state pen, not Penn State”) applied to innumerable Pennsylvanians over the years. Having initiated the suit, Dr Mann then stalled the discovery process, so that the BC suit is now entering its third year – Mann’s object being to use the process as a punishment, rather than any eventual trial and conviction. See Mann vs Ball et al, British Columbia VLC-S-S-111913 (2011) (exhibit attached).

...

131.At the other end of the spectrum, Plaintiff and his Counsel have issued demands that have no basis in law, as they well know – including the preposterous assertion, in response to a parody video by “Minnesotans for Global Warming”, that “Professor Mann’s likeness” is protected from parody and satire...There is a smell to the hockey stick that, in Lady Macbeth's words, “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten” - nor all the investigations. And so Dr Mann has determined to sue it into respectability.

132. At the same time, Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its respectability - by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia...

133. As with his previous legal threats and actions, Plaintiff has brought this lawsuit for the purpose of wrongfully interfering with critics’ statutorily protected right of advocacy on an issue of great public interest and constitutionally protected free-speech rights.

134.Plaintiff’s lawsuit was designed to have and has had the effect of inhibiting legitimate debate on the issues and public policy surrounding the theories expounded by Plaintiff and others and of restricting the free flow of ideas concerning the merits of those theories...

135. It is already having the desired effect. This very week, on February 19th, enraged by a Pennsylvania weatherman’s Tweet, Plaintiff instructed his acolytes through his Facebook and Twitter pages to call the CBS affiliate and demand to know whether this was “acceptable behavior”. Several went further and made threats to “add him to the lawsuit”, and similar. In the event that Mann succeeds in delaying discovery as he has in British Columbia, there will be three years for him and his enforcers to bully weathermen, parodists, fellow scientists and many others by threatening to “add them to the lawsuit”.

136. More particularly, Plaintiff’s lawsuit, with the intent to silence Plaintiff’s critics, has targeted Defendant Steyn, who has written articles critical of Plaintiff and his theories.

137. Such improper chilling of free, robust and uninhibited public debate over climate change taints and skews the democratic process and distorts the resulting governmental public policy response to alleged global warming.

138. Plaintiff’s lawsuit has damaged Defendant Steyn by interfering with his right to express opinions on controversial matters and causing him to expend time, money and effort in having to respond to this lawsuit.

139.The claims in Plaintiff’s lawsuit arise from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of publicinterest and Plaintiff’s lawsuit therefore violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act) ...

140. As a result of Plaintiff’s campaign to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance, wrongful action and violation of the Anti-SLAPP Act, Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM

...

142. Plaintiff’s wrongful interference with Defendant Steyn’s constitutionally protected rights of free speech and public expression and his engagement and use of the courts as an instrument of the government to carry out that wrongful interference violates the First Amendment and constitutes a constitutional tort for which Defendant Steyn is entitled to be compensated.

143. As a consequence of Plaintiff’s wrongful act, Defendant Steyn has been damaged and is entitled to damages, including but not limited to his costs and the attorneys’ fees he has incurred and will incur in the future in defending this action, all in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million, plus punitive damages in the amount of $5 million.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Mark Steyn demands judgment as follows:

a. Dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its entirety;

b. On his First Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees;

c. On his Second Counterclaim, awarding him compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event, not less than $5 million and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million, plus his costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

d. Granting such other and further relief as to the Court seems just."

Mikey's in trouble one way or the other because unless he settles with Steyn he's going to court.

Meanwhile from the Steyn article:

Curry to Mann: "Mark Steyn is formidable opponent. I suspect that this is not going to turn out well for you."

Steyn: "I despise Michael Mann for many reasons, not least for the damage his peculiar insecurities have done to honest inquiry and scientific integrity. But his disgusting treatment of Dr Curry ranks high on my list. And, however long it takes, I will ensure that her prediction from 2012 comes true."

Geronimo

Firstly, Dr. Mann filedin October 2012. Steyn's co-defendants immediately filed a motion to dismiss and then appealed it twice. Surely the defendants are the ones delaying, not Dr. Mann?

Secondly, Steyn is just digging his hole deeper. You quote him as saying "I despise Michael Mann for many reasons." Dr. Mann's lawyer can now quote it in court as part of these for"actual malice"

Thirdly, did Steyn really file that bullshit you quoted as a legal document? It reads like one of his blog posts

Pity Steyn's lawyers. He may have decided to stop representing himself, but they still have a fool for a client.