• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mark Steyn Tries (again) to Push the Mann Trial Forward

Jack Hays said:
Steyn is the one who's been agitating to get the trial under way.
Click to expand...

No. He's SAID hes been trying to get the trial underway, but he knows it makes no sense to have discovery done twice. He's doing it for ratings and to sell books and to be an attention whore so suckers who think AGW is a Chinese Hoax put more money in his pocket.

The judge ruling in the case told him this once, and then the second time, told him that he needs to listen the first time.

The issue is not with Mann's reputation - that is solid and only crapped on by the denierosphere - his academic credentials are quite strong and have never been questioned by anyone in academia - he's a Distinguished Professor at the top Earth Sciences program in the country, for God's sake.
 
An excerpt from the link in #18:

What should have been a straightforward defamation claim has been anything but. The litigation got bogged down in a series of procedural issues (compounded by Steyn’s disagreements with the other defendants). But that’s hardly been the only source of delay.
 
Climate News
[h=1]News on the Mann vs Steyn global-warming hockey-stick case[/h]From Mark Steyn: Breaking news in the Mann vs Steyn global-warming hockey-stick case! Santa has come early and left a lump of coal in my stocking: Almost three years ago, my sometime colleagues at National Review and my co-defendants at the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an interlocutory appeal to determine, inter alia, whether the new…
 
Jack Hays said:
Climate News
[h=1]News on the Mann vs Steyn global-warming hockey-stick case[/h]From Mark Steyn: Breaking news in the Mann vs Steyn global-warming hockey-stick case! Santa has come early and left a lump of coal in my stocking: Almost three years ago, my sometime colleagues at National Review and my co-defendants at the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an interlocutory appeal to determine, inter alia, whether the new…
Click to expand...

It's so cute how he pretends he wants this to go to trial so he can sell more books to suckers.
 
And Trump could never win :roll: How about you two just tell us the outcome when it happens? All this cheerleading just makes the entire thing seem boring.
 
Mithrae said:
And Trump could never win :roll: How about you two just tell us the outcome when it happens? All this cheerleading just makes the entire thing seem boring.
Click to expand...

It IS boring.... it's a legal case that will take years to get to trial/settlement, after all.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, one always brings lawsuits so they don't have to actually get a trial.

Only in denier bizarroland does a plaintiff fear a court proceeding.
Click to expand...

What is it keeps motivating you to post the same old same old year in year out when the worldview you seek to impose by using it is clearly never going to happen ?
 
Jack Hays said:
He did not understand where it would lead when he began.
Click to expand...

Yes, he didn't realize he's have to produce all his data and methods for inspection. Fear indeed.
 
Threegoofs said:
If anyone is interested in the actual facts as opposed to those spun by Steyn and his denier cronies....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-suit-heads-to-trial/?utm_term=.24bff268366b
Click to expand...

Here's the link to the court's decision. Which also shows that the science-denying scientist-bashers have been lying through their teeth as usual:

http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

"Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of the special motions to dismiss the defamation claims based on those articles and remand the case for additional proceedings in the trial court with respect to these claims." (p.105)

“[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.” (p.101)"
 
Last edited:
Quaestio said:
Here's the link to the court's decision. Which also shows that the science-denying scientist-bashers have been lying through their teeth as usual:

http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

"Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of the special motions to dismiss the defamation claims based on those articles and remand the case for additional proceedings in the trial court with respect to these claims." (p.105)

“[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.” (p.101)"
Click to expand...

In other words, the veracity of the research won't be questioned in court.
 
Quaestio said:
Here's the link to the court's decision. Which also shows that the science-denying scientist-bashers have been lying through their teeth as usual:

http://www.dccourts.gov/internet/documents/14-CV-101_14-CV-126.pdf

"Dr. Mann has supplied sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that statements in the articles written by Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn were false, defamatory, and published by appellants to third parties, and, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants did so with actual malice. We, therefore, affirm the trial court’s denial of the special motions to dismiss the defamation claims based on those articles and remand the case for additional proceedings in the trial court with respect to these claims." (p.105)

“[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.” (p.101)"
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
In other words, the veracity of the research won't be questioned in court.
Click to expand...

Please keep in mind that Steyn was not a party to the motion to dismiss, and at trial he is absolutely free to assert the truth of the claim that MM "tortured" the data.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, he didn't realize he's have to produce all his data and methods for inspection. Fear indeed.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
And face cross examination under oath.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
Please keep in mind that Steyn was not a party to the motion to dismiss, and at trial he is absolutely free to assert the truth of the claim that MM "tortured" the data.
Click to expand...

I'll keep in mind that you don't have a clue what you are talking about... as usual.
 
Did I read that right?


ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the trial court’s denial of the special motions
to dismiss the defamation claims is affirmed, and the matter is remanded
for additional proceedings in the trial court with respect to these claims.
​
 
Steyn is being sued for writing a blog insulting Mann. This is the very definition of frivolous and a waste of money and time for the justice system. It doesnt matter if its defaming, as such laws are a violation of free speech in the first place. You might as well sue every single person on this forum who has said much worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom