Mann has successfully silenced critics by using the process of suing as punishment. He run fleeing from any testing of him or his work. He has won nothing but decreasing support....except for that from climate kooks. Meanwhile he has freely defamed everyone including fellow academics, who have dared to disagree with him. Knowing that few reasonable accomplished people stoop to the level he seems to thrive in.

Damages are immense from the Crook't Stick, most of which could have been prevented. There will be a pounding; the ounce was cruelly withheld.
==============

Entropic Mann

Thanks for the link. I haven't read it all, but have looked at the main issue and most relevant part of the judgment. Having done so, I think you are a little over-optimistic on behalf of the world of climate alarmism regarding the conclusions you have drawn.

1. Steyn was not a party to the hearing. The hearing was an appeal of a decision of a lower Court dealing with an unsuccessful application by the defendants to have Mann's case struck out (Steyn's co-defendants appealed, Steyn didn't because, according to him, he regarded it as a waste of time and delaying the case proceeding to trial). The only thing the Court was called upon to decide was whether or not the case should be struck out under the anti-SLAPP laws, or allowed to proceed to trial. The attempt to strike it out on those legalistic grounds was always optimistic, and has failed; that's all. Mann has won nothing, other than the right to go to trial.

The relevant part of the judgment is as follows:

"As a preliminary matter, we hold that we have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear appellants’ interlocutory appeals of the trial court’s denial of their special motions to dismiss filed under the Anti-SLAPP Act. We
further hold that the Anti-SLAPP Act’s “likely to succeed” standard for overcoming a properly filed special motion to dismiss requires that the plaintiff present evidence — not simply allegations — and that the evidence must be legally sufficient to permit a jury properly instructed on the applicable constitutional standards to reasonably find in the plaintiff’s favor. Having conducted an independent review of the evidence to ensure that it surmounts the constitutionally required threshold, we conclude that Dr. Mann has presented evidence sufficient to defeat the special motions to dismiss as to some of his claims. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings."

If you read those words carefully, you'll appreciate that they don't actually express an opinion regarding Mann's prospects of success at trial, merely that he has overcome the low evidential threshold necessary to defeat the anti-SLAPP claim to strike out. In English law we have a procedure whereby a defendant can try to strike out a claim on the basis that the case is so weak it shouldn't be allowed to proceed to trial, essentially because to go to trial would simply to waste the Court's time and would be unfairly prejudicial to the Defendant (I paraphrase). A case really would have to be pretty hopeless to be struck out on that basis at that stage. I don't fully understand the anti-SLAPP legislation (I don't think we have any equivalent in English law) but I imagine the hurdle to the plaintiff has to pass in order to be allowed to proceed is similarly low.

2. Steyn did join in the attempt to have the case struck out, but not the appeal when that application failed. I can't blame any defendant for trying to get rid of a case at an early stage, as that is the cheap and hassle-free option if it succeeds. I don't remotely think that justifies your claim that "it is Steyn who has made repeated attempts to have the case rejected on various legal grounds and has failed repeatedly. Like yourself, I would expect that, if he were confident of his defence, Steyn would be eager to have his day in court and get it over, much the cheaper course."

3. I stress again that I don't understand US legal procedures and therefore I am no position to state with certainty that your following claim is wrong:

"In a US libel trial discovery takes place during the actual court hearing and it is usually the defendants that shows by their own discovery that they had reasonable grounds for their accusations

Since the case has not yet come to trial, no discovery has yet taken place by either side. "

However, I would be extremely surprised if that claim is correct, and certainly in English law, such a claim would be plain wrong.

I should add that discovery is required in order to serve a number of purposes. Not least, in English Courts at least, is the ability of the parties to litigation better to assess the strength of their own and their opponents' cases. The rules are drafted as they are in the hope that, having seen the written evidence that is forthcoming from the discovery process, the parties might be more realistic about their chances of success and consequently more inclined to explore the possibility of settlement, without the expense and hassle of trial (and without thereby unnecessarily taking up the trial judge's time).

If US legal procedures really do allow the parties to delay discovery until the trial has commenced, that would be a very strange and inefficient way of proceeding. EM - do you have evidence for that assertion?

Mark Hodgson, EM has sourced his Legal guidance from the well known expert, Greg Laden. If you are suffering from a seasonal surplus of intestinal methane, Greg Laden's Wikipedia entry provides a list of his achievements:

"Laden has taught at multiple institutions, including, but not limited to, Harvard, the University of Minnesota, and Century College.[4] In 1999, when he was on the faculty of the University of Minnesota, he co-authored a study in Current Anthropology that found that the practice of humans cooking food evolved because it allowed them to cook vegetables.[2][5]He publishes a blog, "Greg Laden's Blog", on ScienceBlogs,[1] where he focuses on public controversies regarding multiple scientific topics, including global warming[6] and evolution.[7]"

Compare counsel with respect to the First Amendment; the richest against the best(I paraphrase).
===============

Here is an interesting interview with Mark Steyn that is worth hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc

EM "Since Steyn has gone to great lengths to avoid going into court, it is a reasonable assumption that no defence is possible and Steyn knows he will lose."

That is simply not true, as I posted above, Steyn wants to get to discovery, where the evidence is exchanged by both sides. Mann does not.

Steyn: "As I said above, I thought the appeal was a waste of time, and filed a motion to proceed to trial three years ago. Mann filed a motion objecting to that, a position the judge found “ironic“."

I think it's easy to draw the conclusion that's it's Mann who doesn't want to go to trial. Mann falsely claimed to be a Nobel Laureate three times in his deposition to the court, which at best shows he's an ignoramus and at worst a serial liar. He's also avoided discovery with Professor Tim Ball.

I don't know if he is a fraud, what I do know is that he used a hitherto unknown technique for Principal Component Analysis, which has been roundly condemned by eminent statisticians, indeed the "world expert" on PCA, Ian Jolliffe has questioned its usefulnes.

I'm assuming the judges will have to decide if he used this unique technique for PCA knowingly to get a hockeystick shape. There are plenty of experts Steyn can call who will attest to the both the novelty of the technique and that it will provide a hockeystick where there isn't one. It would probably be easy to prove that decentering of PCA is not used widely, if at all. They would also have Mann's raw data and code etc. They could also point out that the graph has been quietly dropped by the IPCC, and of course point to the number of papers that came before and came after the graph that didn't support the conclusions.

To be honest if I was in Mann's shoes, even if I had inadvertently used decentering for PCA, I would hesitate to go before a court to decide my innocence on the issue. And he won't, mark (if you'll excuse the pun) my words.

A WUWT thread from 3 years ago. Some interesting info in the post, and in the Comments, from some interesting people.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/21/ipcc-throws-manns-hockey-stick-under-the-bus/

Why did the IPCC decide to throw the Hockey Stick under a bus, having featured it so prominently in previous propaganda disguised as technical reports?

Will Steyn or Mann be calling a representative of the IPCC into court as a witness, to explain why the Hockey Stick went from international stardom to the gutter? Surely someone from the IPCC can explain its fall from grace.

More on faking climate science

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/25/global-cooling-and-wikipedia-fake-news/

Why the effort to subvert, if the science was honourably settled?

"I'm assuming the judges will have to decide if he used this unique technique for PCA knowingly to get a hockeystick shape. "

Why do you assume that?

"There are plenty of experts Steyn can call who will attest to the both the novelty of the technique and that it will provide a hockeystick where there isn't one."

That is not actually the case.

" It would probably be easy to prove that decentering of PCA is not used widely, if at all."

It has already been shown that using decentred PCA has a negligible impact on the curve.

"They would also have Mann's raw data and code etc. "

The data is public domain. Mann has complied with all his obligations to share.

"They could also point out that the graph has been quietly dropped by the IPCC,"

The graph is 17 years old and has been superceded by other reconstructions, including Mann et al 2008, which IS in the IPCC report.

"of course point to the number of papers that came before and came after the graph that didn't support the conclusions."
Name one.

Interesting take on the judgement from Jonathan Adler at WaPo.

"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."

"of course point to the number of papers that came before and came after the graph that didn't support the conclusions."
Name one.

Dec 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM | Phil Clarke

Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness.

Conclusion:"Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region."

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke

Phil Clarke, could you supply the list please? Gergis has proved that faked-up Climate Science can only be verified by other faking Climate Scientists.

"The graph is 17 years old and has been superceded by other reconstructions, including Mann et al 2008, which IS in the IPCC report.

Dec 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM | Phil Clarke"

What was wrong with the 17 year old graph, that needed superceding with so many other reconstructions that needed to verify or prove the original Hockey Stick, as per Gergis 2016?

If Climate Science had actually admitted the Hockey Stick was rubbish, 10+ years ago, and admitted the mistakes, Climate Science wouldn''t be facing oblivion.

How many £€billion$ of taxpayer's money has been wasted trying to save Mann's ego? Now he is going to wipe out Climate Science, and it has all been thrown away.

Phil Clarke, could you supply the list please?

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/36-hockey-sticks-and-counting.

The Gergis/Hockey Stick obsession is amusing. You never did explain the relevance of Gergis (Australasia) to MBH (Northern Hemisphere).

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/36-hockey-sticks-and-counting.html

Counting a large number of cow pies still does not make the cow pies more like chocolate creme pies, Phil, nor less like used cow food. You walk through a pasture and seem to think that spreading what sticks to your boots validates you in some manner.

hunter 6:04 cow pies mixed with pork pies, just about sums-up Climate Science.

You never did explain the relevance of Gergis (Australasia) to MBH (Northern Hemisphere).

Dec 26, 2016 at 5:15 PM | Phil Clarke

Neither did you, but you stated that Gergis proved it. Gergis was faked, so Mann's Hockey Stick was?

Mark Hodgson

Somewhere in here, one of the deniers refers to Steyn deposing Mann in court. Does this imply that the discovery is done in advance or on the day.

With all of Mann's data and procedures already publicly available and filed with the court there seems no point in going over it again. There is probably nothing more to gain.

Steyn, on the other hand, has published no defence that I know of (links please if he has published a defence) Deposing him may be more interesting.

Another thing that amuses me is that golf charlie denies the Hockey stick,. However, if you asked him/her/yx/apex/LGBT to draw the temperature curve for the last thousand years, gc would draw a hockey stick.

I wonder what Steve McIntyre would draw? I think the only time he and McKitrick actually put a reconstruction together - in M&M 2005, it turned out to depend on dodgy statistics.

Oh, the irony.

Entropic Mann, why would I draw a Hockey Stick?

Everyone knows about the MWP and LIA. I was aware of them at school, not by name or 3 Letter Acronym. Didn't you learn about them at school, before becoming a teacher and denying them?

Phil Clarke, why did Mann have to draw a Hockey Stick? The IPCC never used a Hockey Stick shaped graph until Mann produced one. The IPCC's experts originally accepted the MWP.

Funding for Climate Science shot up because of Mann's Hockey Stick, and Climate Science credibility has been declining ever since.

If Climate Scientists had not turned to gullible politicians to satisfy their mutual greed, there would not be so many redundancies being planned by sceptical politicians.

Hopefully "Overseas Aid" money from taxpayers, can again find it's way overseas to aid the poor and needy, and not be snatched for Climate Science propaganda purposes, and mutual backslapping fests.

Phil Clarke & Entropic Mann

Ben Santer, has now realised the the end of Climate Science is nigh. Trump does not believe in the Hockey Stick

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/26/ben-santer-to-trump-dont-listen-to-the-ignorant-voices-on-climate-change/

Meanwhile, fresh reminders about the Global Cooling Scare that William M. Connelley, and others, have tried to disappear. I can remember that, even though I was at school, and not even a teenager.

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.2TZwPFEt.dpbs

Golf Charlie

You describe a w,arm period 1000 years ago, which cooled into the Little Ice Age. You say that the LIA bottomed out sometime in the mid 1800s and the world has been warming ever since.

Sounds like a hockey stick to me.

Perhaps you could give me numbers. A temperature value every 50 years from1000AD to the present.

I could then draw your graph and see how it differs from the most recent version of the global temperature hockey stick ensemble.