EM: "Mark Hodgson might be better able to answer this. Would it be appropriate to begin discovery on a countersuit while a motion to dismiss the original suit was still undecided?"

Steyn was not party to the appeal of the original suit, he wants to go to trial. If you are accused of tort you should be able to see the evidence ASAP as Mark Hodgson says this may result in you deciding to fold your hand and save everyone a lot of trouble and money. Anyway Ball is now in the dock in a Canadian court, we'll see how seriously they think Michael Mann has been damaged by Ball saying he should be in the State Penn rather than Penn State. Mann has already had his success with Ball, he's bankrupted him, which some might regard as a suitable punishment for such an outrageous calumny.

FYI Mann's work was not considered by either of the whitewashes. Muir Russel's TORs are below, and Oxburgh's were to examine the scientific papers of the UEA, which they duly selected for him.

"Googling "Muir Russell" and "Oxburgh" the two UK Inquiries, along with "Climate Audit" and "Bishop Hill"

Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice and may therefore call into question any of the research outcomes.
Review CRU‘s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice.
Review CRU‘s compliance or otherwise with the University‘s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act ( ̳the FoIA‘) and the Environmental Information Regulations ( ̳the EIR‘) for the release of data.
Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.‖
*Note: The word ̳hacked‘ as contained in the Review‘s terms of reference has been challenged in submissions to the Review, on the basis that the means by which the unauthorized disclosure of the e-mails was made has not been established. This matter is subject to police enquiries and the Review has made no judgment on the question

“CRU’s scientific papers have been examined by scientists from other institutions through the peer review process before being accepted for publication by international journals. We have no reason to question the effectiveness of this process. Nevertheless, given the concerns about climate research expressed by some in the media, we decided to augment the Muir Russell review with an independent assessment of CRU’s key publications in the areas which have been most subject to comment.”59

geronimo, I am not arguing with your post, but as a supplementary point .....

as a Canadian Court MAY hear "conflicting technical opinions" about Mann's Hockey Stick, the Court will probably seek to avoid making a judgement on the Hockey Stick, per se, if it is not being asked to.

If the Canadian Court is not able to produce a Legal and/or Technical Judgement that can set a new Precedent in Law or "Science", Mann MAY be discredited, but not necessarily his Hockey Stick. This could place various professional bodies around the World in a dilemma, about their own professionalism.

Trump wants Climate Science felled, and publicly discredited, in one legal and defining swoop, asap.

Geronimo

You raise an interesting possibility.

If Steyn wishes to use the hacked CRU emails against Dr Mann, (and it is not certain that the court would allowthem to be admitted as evidence) then he must establish that they are genuine.

I look forward to whoever did the hack testifying to that effect in court.

EM, Mann claims to have been exonerated by investigations into the ClimateGate E-Mails. He has never disputed the authenticity of the E-Mails before.

No other Climate Scientist implicated has disputed the authenticity of the E-Mails.

Muir Russell and Oxburgh did not question the authenticity of the E-Mails.

If Mann wishes to rewrite his own published accounts of ClimateGate E-Mails, and go into full blown denial mode, no one should be too surprised, as Mann's logic works in mysterious ways.

It would be an interesting new tactic to delay the trial even further, but it might increase the scale of any punitive damages. Calling implicated Climate Scientists to give evidence under Oath that they HAD NOT written E-Mails with their names on, could really prove expensive for Climate Scientists, see "Perjury".

When the internet presents uncontested book, chapter, and verse, documentation of flagrant attempts to pervert due process and the course of justice, it now seems to normal to blame the Russians. Traditionally, looking into such offences was considered to be the purview of professional investigational journalists (before the boys-in-blue are called in), but they seem to be lacking in numbers these days or have got better things to do*.

I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Mann eventually claimed, via Twitter, that he has an anonymous CIA source at UEA with evidence that Mann's hockey stick is not a complete fraud, but that the margins on his web-page are too narrow for him to submit the proofs to the court right now.

(*Perhaps I should have said "few in numbers". Most 'journalists' are certainly lacking in the numbers department. The closer they get to BBC environmental web-pages, the worse their abilities seem to get.)

EM. Phil Jones.admitted in front of witnesses that the emails are genuine. Even I could testify to that.

GC I agree with you, the hockey stick will probably not come up in Tim Ball's case, which in any event is pretty farcical. If it is an offence under Canadian law to say someone should be in the State Pen rather than Penn State I suspect the punishment will be light. But that's not the purpose of these suits, the process is meant to damage the defendants financially, and in the case of Prof Bell it has cost him his life savings already. So Mikey's won already.

EM I think you'll find that the fact that three investigations and the UEA didn't challenge the provenance of the leaked emails will weigh heavily in there favour when being judged as genuine. (Quite apart from the fact that nobody has questioned their authenticity - SkS could have I suppose but I never go to that site).

Supertroll & Geronimo

Climate Science does specialise in Unbelievable stories, and fantastic claims. Michael Mann developed Science into an artform with his imaginative creativity, reminiscent of Jackson Pollock's work.

GC. It's difficult for practitioners of climate science to speak out, mainly because the field is so diverse that they have no expertise in quite a large part of it, but also because it's not worth the trouble you'll get putting your head above the parapet. Mikey doesn't just defend the hockeystick, as Roger Peilke Jr. (driven out of his job, not because he doesn't believe in AGW and the IPCC, but because his research showed no effects of global warming) said:

"No one has worked harder than Michael Mann, in public or behind the scenes, to destroy academic careers of those w/ views different than his."

And Michael Mann isn't the only one there are the spotty little boys over at SkS who get off on abusing people, and many scientist activists who'll gladly see a colleague downed for not agreeing with them, real climate.com springs to mind. NO one helps when this pack of wolves comes after you.

It happens in other fields too, Andrew Wakefield managed single handedly to get MMR effectively banned, he was brought down eventually but it took 20 years or so.

I started out on this thread not being sure that the hockey stick was an intentional fraudulent diagram, having read the evidence of the Wegman Report, the NAS report, MMO5, McIntyre and McKitrick's rebuttal of Ammann and Wahl, various statements from Mann himself, some climategate emails where both Jones and Briffa tell him that they couldn't be sure (that's scientific speak for don't believe)the late 20th century was the hottest in a millennium and Mann's central role in the UEA shenanigans, the refusal to share data on MBH, the non-disclosure of the r2 results, the SECRET file in which Mann tries to run his code on the data without the bristlecone pines and gets noise, the use of the bristlecone pines, the obfuscation and obstruction - I could go on all day. All this has led me that Mann has a case to answer, but it should be in front of impartial, non-scientific jury under oath.

I think Steyn came to that conclusion when he countersued Michael Mann, he wants to get him questioned on these things by lawyers disinclined to accept fuzzy answers.

Don't forget the NAS panel agreed with Legman 100%, but didn't feel inclined (because it was unthinkable to them) to say that there had been any wrongdoing in the use of unknown statistics, hiding the r2 statistical test result, using bristlecone pines, known throughout dendrology not to have a reliable temperature signal and lots more. Neutral observers are unlikely to be so accommodating in my view. If I live long enough I might yet see the denouement of this saga, but I'm not holding my breath.

geronimo, agreed! That is why I believe it is more likely that Trump will want a quick win, using Criminal Law, against "a climate scientist, or group of climate scientists". Al Capone was done for tax evasion, not for being a mobster, or a particular murder or bit of extortion.

Those within Climate Science who know the Hockey Stick is not a fair and honest depiction, keep quiet, for fear of bringing their whole industry crashing down.

Hence my previous suggestions about trying to identify the good bits of Climate Science before the whole lot gets scrapped.

If Climate Science amounts to nothing, without the Hockey Stick, there is little option for insiders, but to try to defend it. It is interesting to note how many have agreed to in pre-trial submissions so far.

golfCharlie. I wish what you have just posted (11.02am) were true but I fear it isn't. If the goods on the Hockey Stick had emerged immediately after it appeared (6 times?) In the IPCC report there might have been a chance. But now the alarmists have moved on. Some will even admit to a few minor errors in its construction, but will claim the new all singing and all dancing versions are now available, and moreover reveal the HS was correct. An image of a Medusa shedding hockey sticks (one of Josh's?) comes to mind.

Supertroll, in military terminology, a fighting retreat, back to prepared defensive positions!

One possible cause of all the taxpayer funding invested in proving the Hockey Stick!? Gergis springs to mind!

Trump can cut off funding, but he needs a decisive battle. Criminal Law is more efficient than Civil.

GC I'm not sure there's a crime in this. If a jury should decide that the hockey stick is a fabrication the climate science community will simply move on. They've pretty much quietly abandoned the HS anyway, and critising Man will only risk bringing the wrath of realclimate.com and SkS (and indeed Mann himself) down upon them.

Not to sure about that geronimo. Courts can be pretty draconian about interference with juries, even after they have completed their duties.

Supertroll

I think you missed my point.

If Steyn wishes to use the hacked CRU emails the onus is on him to prove that they are genuine. To do so he would need either affidavits, witness statements or court testimony.

You might get an all-expenses paid trip to Washington out of this!

geronimo, Mann and/or the Hockey Stick do not have to be the primary target.

Under UK Law, fraud can be applying for Taxpayer Funding to buy apples, and buying oranges instead, it depends on the wording. It would be a Criminal Offence.

Trump, or his Presidential Appointments, should have full access to Government funded work and research etc, within the EPA and NASA/Goddard etc. If something has been removed/deleted, that too, could also be a Criminal Offence.

The recent US panic amongst Climate Scientists to copy all records to prevent Trump deleting them, may actually provide wonderful evidence trails, of what they deleted themselves! If people have copied vast databases, and kept it, that may also be a Criminal Offence, it may also have multiplied the number of sources for a further hacking leak.

Steyn wants Mann's head on a stick, and my sympathies lie with Steyn. Trump does not need a specific Climate Scientist's head on a stick, to destroy Climate Science, but the more the merrier.

As Shukla, and possibly others amongst the RICO 20, have been committing financial fraud, and the RICO 20 action was endorsed by Democrat State Attorneys, and it would send waves through George Mason University, and many more, it would also be curious to know why Law Enforcement has not already made arrests.

Dame Julia Slingo of the UK Met Office did attend conferences involving Shukla. She did not sign the letter, and as a non US Citizen, probably would not have been asked. Trump does not have to worry about arresting Non US Citizens, or upsetting foreign powers.

Trump does not have to go after Mann. He does have better access to technical and legal advisors, some of whom will be familiar with Mann and Steyn, and Mann v Steyn. There is no point in Trump trying to destroy Climate Science, if it is going to fester through the Civil Courts for the duration of his Presidency.

EM Steyn is highly unlikely to be asked to prove if the Climategate emails are genuine, there were three investigations arising out of their release in the UK, none of which even considered the emails as false. In his testimony to the parliamentary committee Jones was confronted with the Warwick Hughes (?) email in which he famously said. "Why should I send my data to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?" (Paraphrase). His response (again paraphrased) was. "I've written some pretty horrible emails." The authenticity of the climategate emails is not in any doubt.

Not sure I did misunderstand you EM. You wrote "If Steyn wishes to use the hacked CRU emails against Dr Mann ....then he must establish that they are genuine" my comment was that their genuineness was never contested and freely admitted (to which even I could testify). I have no wish to go to Trumpville to testify.

Naughty, naughty. No evidence of hacking.

Heh, of course the Crook't Stick was important; Fenton set up the fake news site, RealClimate, after Steve McIntyre started making waves with his critique. The Stick is still terribly important for the lie that is the straightened shaft which places the guilt of recent warming upon humans. This is why it is defended, and why we see the likes of the desperate Entropic Man and the wily Phil Clarke. This is also why I think that the suit will eventually be dropped and the countersuit settled if it begins to look like the public has a chance to be shown the chicanery and deceit in the Crook't Stick, which has very much helped the corruption of wise policy done by the alarmist movement.
=================

Heh, sometimes I wonder about 'wily'. Surely, despite the words of the judge, Phil hasn't convinced himself that this development is bad news for Steyn. Or did he briefly listen to bad advice and leap to the wrong conclusion about it?
===========

EM

If Mann does not contest the validity of the emails, then I believe they would be admissible without more ado. If, on the other hand, Mann were to contest their validity, then Steyn would have to demonstrate their validity, probably in one of the ways you suggest. But what would be the point in Mann doing that - other than to add to the costs and/or to delay matters - since nobody has ever contested their validity? The main complaint about them has been that they were hacked, not that they were in some way fabricated.

Heh(Gad, I'm easily amused today) Mark, 'add to the costs and/or delay matters'. You have it in a nutshell.

On the other hand, the Piltdown Mann would be very ill advised to bring up and tout ClimateGate so publicly.

He's in a real quandary; he's likely to damage his precious 'cause' whichever way he turns.
================

Imagine if he'd ignored Steyn and the National Review. Imagine everything thing is beautiful, in its own way.
=============

Mark Hodgson

Can you submit documentary evidence without provenance in the UK?