Mann vs. Steyn: Heresy Shall Be Crushed

American Thinker ^ | July 26, 2013 | Daren Jonescu

[neverdem]

Remember when scientists and other truth-seekers used to get all riled up about the way the Catholic Church treated Galileo? The outcry was not over the fact that Galileo was a "peer-reviewed" researcher, and therefore beyond question. Quite the contrary: the argument was that, from the point of view of the quest for truth, no one, including the representatives of official orthodoxy and authority, ought to be regarded as beyond question. In the Michael Mann lawsuit against Mark Steyn and National Review, it is the "award-winning researcher" who is joining the fight for Church orthodoxy, while the defendants are the persecuted Galileos.

Mann, of course, is the creator of the famous "hockey stick graph" that has been employed doggedly throughout the doctrinaire climate science community and the mainstream media as proof that the Earth has shown a marked and unprecedented increase in global mean temperature during the brief period of industrial society's extreme CO2 production, which increase is consequently cited as proof that man's industrial activity is causing the temperature rise. Let us leave aside the climate religion's little logical problem, namely the contradiction between (a) its complete dependence on the premise that rising CO2 levels can and do have an immediate and substantial effect on global temperature, and (b) its attempts to dismiss the significance of the fact that global temperature has not increased significantly since 1995 while CO2 emissions have continued to rise, on the grounds that this is supposedly too short a period to prove anything.

The concern in this context is not so much the truth or falsity of the global warming theory, but the implications of this lawsuit, and its social importance, should Mann actually win.

Steyn, along with many researchers on whom he has leaned in developing his critique, have questioned both the methods...

[abclily]

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls our climates.

3. The earth is a rock.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?

[jamaksin]

"Mann, of course, is the creator of the famous 'hockey stick graph' ..."

Gompertz and Pearl-Reed "growth" or "logistics" curves (aka "S Curves") might object.

[Maceman]

It is not clear but it seems that the judge is simply saying that the question whether Mann committed fraud in his studies as a question of fact which must be determined by a hearing because it relates to whether or not the defense of truth will avail Marc Steyn and the other defendants. If this is so, there is nothing exceptional about the judge's ruling, however exceptional her grammar may be.

Your own exceptional grammar renders your first sentence incomprehensible. Did you mistakenly type "as" when you meant to type "is"?

The first paragraph of your post could be clearer, also.

Whereas most grammatical errors I see on FR are merely annoying, I'm afraid that your grammar actually obscures your point. True, I am getting on in years and thus have lost numerous brain cells over time. Still, I think it would be worth it for you to rewrite your post because it seems like your point would be useful if only it could be made more clearly.

[BilLies]

The Robing Room, where judges are judged.

http://www.therobingroom.com/dc/Judge.aspx?ID=3789

She did not do too well.

[muir_redwoods]

Yes and she can’t read cursive.

[rmh47]

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?

By regulating and taxing the crap out of you, of course!

[nathanbedford]

You are correct the "as" should be rendered, "is." The source of the problem is Dragon NaturallySpeaking software which often confuses "is" for "as" and even more often "his" for "is."

The blame for the problem however belongs to the proofreader.

As to the meaning of the reply, an open question of fact must be determined by the trier of fact but questions of law are resolved by the judge. The judge here is saying that she cannot from the pleadings alone conclusively find that there is no issue of fact concerning the alleged fraud which has been raised by the respondents as a defense. She cannot simply conclude that a fraud was committed, or not committed for that matter, that remains an open question to be decided by a jury or a judge, if sitting without a jury, after a plenary hearing.

[C. Edmund Wright]

But where is the burden in such a hearing, and was it met?

[exDemMom]

As to the meaning of the reply, an open question of fact must be determined by the trier of fact but questions of law are resolved by the judge. The judge here is saying that she cannot from the pleadings alone conclusively find that there is no issue of fact concerning the alleged fraud which has been raised by the respondents as a defense. She cannot simply conclude that a fraud was committed, or not committed for that matter, that remains an open question to be decided by a jury or a judge, if sitting without a jury, after a plenary hearing.

Not to insult you or anything, but I find trying to read your posts is rather humbling. I write mostly on scientific issues, and can quickly and easily go over reader's heads. Reading your posts is a reminder of how my scientific descriptions can look if I am not careful.

Of course, scientific writing is meant to be clear and legalese is meant to obfuscate... but that's beside the point.

[Peet]

I am unclear why Mann, a person who has spent a decade or more desparately seeking public attention, doesn’t qualify as a public figure who has less protection in libel cases.

---

Remember, also, that Mann demanded under thread of lawsuit that `Minnesotans For Global Warming’ remove his image from their parody him and the rest of the warm-mongers.

(The parody can still be found in dusty corners of the internetz under the name “hide the decline.”)

[exDemMom]

Correction: should be readers' not reader's. Dang English and its sound-alike grammatical constructs.

[from occupied ga]

And after that, two more conservatives.

WHAT?? Who? Neither of the Bushes were by any stretch of the imagination conservative.

[Flavious_Maximus]

I saw the FORTRAN code written by Mann, which was released to the public by the East Anglia University whistle blowers.

In the code, you can clearly see the comment notes written by Mann whereby he uses a fudge factor calculation to plot the coordinates of “hockey stick” graph. This was in light of actual data stored in a data base that could be reproduced. When researches asked Mann why he used a “fudge factor”, he said that it was because the original data of earth atmospheric temperatures taken in numerous places around the world was lost.

Once you understand these events, you realize that Yes, Michael Mann is a total fraud.

[nathanbedford]

In a civil case the plaintiff has the burden, unless it can be shifted, usually by a "preponderance of the evidence" which roughly means something more than 50%.

At this stage of a proceeding, which I take to be a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment, the court assumes all of the factual allegations of the respondent party to be true and then asks itself whether the respondent can win (not should win) as a matter of law. This is decided on papers, rarely with any testimony, and it is really to determine whether the respondent has negotiated the hurdle of articulating a legal case.

A plenary hearing occurs with witnesses and evidence such as documents or physical objects and the plaintiff must carry his burden as described to the trier of fact. Such a hearing will occur upon the failure of the motions described here.

So now Marc Steyn and the rest of the defendants will engage in a hearing with experts etc. in which I believe they will have the burden of proof by the preponderance of the evidence to show their affirmative defense which is that the science is false, or, put another way, their statements concerning the falsity of global warming are true. It is my recollection that the burden of proof will shift to the defendants because this is an affirmative defense. Please note that shifting the burden is not same as shifting the test which could be "clear and convincing" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" as well as "preponderance of the evidence."

All of this will be adjusted if the defendants can show that the plaintiff is a public figure in which case there must be a showing of malice on the part of the defendants in uttering a falsehood and it may be that the burden shifts back onto the plaintiff and/or the standard of proof is elevated from preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing with the burden on the plaintiff. I just don't remember if the plaintiff must show malice by clear and convincing evidence or if he must disprove the truth of the alleged libel and, if so, to what standard.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I don’t see how you get to Steyn et al having the burden. (also, a little more english and a little less legaleze would make conversing quicker and more efficient. I deal with lawywers all the time in my business.....not looking to here...

[nathanbedford]

I understand your complaint and plead guilty especially if I confuse the reader when I am writing a polemic. If one writing an explanation and not trying to persuade, one seeks to be correct rather than transparent or memorable.

When writing a polemic one seeks to persuade and if one obfuscates to the degree that he is unclear, he has lost the battle. There is, however, the dilemma of offering up a clear and compelling statement which is only 90% true. In that case your interlocutor will seize on the untrue minutia to discredit your entire point, and you into the bargain. Therefore, there is a tendency, at least on my part, to try to anticipate and wall off those contingencies. Hence, what was clear becomes unclear due to an abundance of caution as one becomes entangled in exceptions, stipulations, and qualifications.

I try to write most of the time not to convince confirmed conservatives who dominate these threads but to engage the drive by a-political reader or a newbie to these threads about conservatism. If one commits one misstep and loses credibility to these people, they turn off and go on to the next political flavor of the week.

As a scientific writer, you know that it is a shorthand to write in the jargon of your profession and it is sometimes very clumsy to translate back into the civilian tongue. That can happen when one tries to unpack a court's opinion, for example.

Finally, there is just plain laziness to blame and a rush to get in line in a thread to be heard, both of which contribute to clumsy syntax, mangled grammar, and shoddy proofreading.

Thank you for your comments.

[nathanbedford]

C. Edmund:

I wrote a rather lengthy reply in a good-faith effort to try to answer your questions. In response you said, "also, a little more english and a little less legaleze would make conversing quicker and more efficient…"

This after my reply contained the following translations of legalese into English:

(1) "preponderance of the evidence" which roughly means something more than 50%.

(2) it is really to determine whether the respondent has negotiated the hurdle of articulating a legal case.

(3) A plenary hearing occurs with witnesses and evidence such as documents or physical objects

(4) I believe they will have the burden of proof by the preponderance of the evidence to show their affirmative defense which is that the science is false, or, put another way, their statements concerning the falsity of global warming are true.

You might also note that the reply builds upon these previous English translations of the legalese so that the statement at the end should be quite clear to the lay reader.

As I said, I'm not fresh in my memory about whether the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the truth of their alleged libel, but I think it does. Nor am I clear, as I said, about what burden of proof they must meet in doing so.

I trust the matter as well is the language is now clear.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Shame on you....I understand the legaleze....I just find it bureaucratic and effete and overly presumptious and boring, not to mention inefficient. And in typical legaleze, you have defined the terms but not yet splained why the preponderance of the evidence (if I’m learnt nuff to figger it out) burden is on Steyn et al.)

[nathanbedford]

Usually, but not always, when a defendant pleads an affirmative defense (the truth of the alleged libel, for example) the burden shifts to the party asserting the affirmative defense. It makes sense in logic that the proponent of the fact or a condition should have the responsibility for proving it. Otherwise, the other side is put to the task of disproving the negative.

Since Steyn is asserting this affirmative defense I believe he would be put to the proof.

Legalese is a shorthand to those who use the jargon. All professions do it, even authors of great books.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Legalese is long hand for those who want to over bureaucratize what would otherwise be a simple process.......it’s part of the FEAL -—Full Employment Act for Lawyers....

Still not sold that Steyn has not met what should be his burden, regardless of his defense. The defense only has a burden once the plaintiff has met one, and the plaintiffs have NOT.