BREAKING!! Michael Mann.....climate criminal?

[HelenaHandbag]

You Tube, the finest in objective scientific resources.

Tell us, Helen, if you had Michael Mann on the gallows trapdoor with a noose around his neck, would you pull the lever to send him hurtling down, watch him choke and turn purple and shit himself? Would you enjoy that? Would you feel you'd done the world a great service? Do any of you out there think you'd change any climate scientists' minds by getting rid of Michael Mann?

No.

I just want to watch him continue to get humiliated as all his lies crumble to dust.

That and I want to have him turn over all his faked data, during the discovery phase of the Steyn legal fiasco.

 

[mamooth]

But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.

 

[Abraham3]

You Tube, the finest in objective scientific resources.

Tell us, Helen, if you had Michael Mann on the gallows trapdoor with a noose around his neck, would you pull the lever to send him hurtling down, watch him choke and turn purple and shit himself? Would you enjoy that? Would you feel you'd done the world a great service? Do any of you out there think you'd change any climate scientists' minds by getting rid of Michael Mann?

No.

I just want to watch him continue to get humiliated as all his lies crumble to dust.

That and I want to have him turn over all his faked data, during the discovery phase of the Steyn legal fiasco.

Aside from the excellent point Mamooth makes, when you say "continue to get humiliated", it includes the contention that he has already been humiliated and continues to do so. Would you care to identify the matter over which Mann has been humilated heretofore? And you speak about his lies crumbling to dust. What lies would that be?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.

Steyn is fighting every aspect of the whole frivolous lawsuit, as anyone would.

If Mann has nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to turn over the metadata in Canada last week?

Oh, and "denialist" still isn't a word, sport.

 

[Abraham3]

In English, language is defined by use. We use denialist, it's a word.

That's a quick turnaround. From Steyn wants to embarrass Mann with discovery to Steyn is fighting discovery because its frivolous. Hmm...

 

[HelenaHandbag]

In English, language is defined by use. We use denialist, it's a word.

That's a quick turnaround. From Steyn wants to embarrass Mann with discovery to Steyn is fighting discovery because its frivolous. Hmm...

No, it's not. We really don't need any more evidence that you warmers just make crap up as you go along.

 

[skookerasbil]

But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.

Ummm......but he cant produce the data.



f A I L

 

[Abraham3]

So... you believe Steyn, NR and CEI have concluded thheir case? That might be true. Ever since they lost their attempt to have the complaint dismissed on the anti-SLAPP statute, their enthusiasm has seemed a little wan. When warned by Mann that he would sue if they did not retract Steyn and Simbergs's statements and apologize, National Review sneered and invited Mann to sue them, saying then that they'd use discovery to uncover Mann's manipulated data. But now... not so much. Perhaps that's because they've realized that they don't actually have any evidence that Mann manipulated his data in any unjustified or deceptive manner and that the counter discovery will allow Mann to establish actual hostility and knowledge that the accusations were false and defamatory.

This paragraph from "The Volokh Conspiracy", Mann v. Steyn -- Mann Wins Round One | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy, a generally conservative blog aimed at legal analysis.

In her two orders (NRO/Steyn, CEI/Simberg), Judge Combs-Greene characterizes the this as a “close case.” She recognizes Mann qualifies as a “public figure,” at least in the context of climate policy debates. This requires that Mann show that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with actual malice — i.e. actual knowledge that the allegdly defamatory claims were false or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims made. Despite this high burden, Judge Combs-Greene ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss. In her view, both sets of defendants made statements that alleged or implied facts that could be defamatory or otherwise actionable, e.g. that Mann engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. She further concluded that, despite the “slight” evidence of actual malice “at this stage” of the litigation, “[t]here is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false.” As discovery could produce sufficient evidence to support a claim of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, Judge Combs-Greene concluded the cases should not be dismissed.

 

[Abraham3]

But Steyn is fighting discovery, while Mann is pushing for it. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory? Mann is the guy who clearly has nothing to hide, while your denialist heroes want to keep their doings hidden.

Ummm......but he cant produce the data.

f A I L

Do us all a favor: have one more beer and go to bed. Okay?

 

[HelenaHandbag]

So... you believe Steyn, NR and CEI have concluded thheir case? That might be true. Ever since they lost their attempt to have the complaint dismissed on the anti-SLAPP statute, their enthusiasm has seemed a little wan. When warned by Mann that he would sue if they did not retract Steyn and Simbergs's statements and apologize, National Review sneered and invited Mann to sue them, saying then that they'd use discovery to uncover Mann's manipulated data. But now... not so much. Perhaps that's because the counter discovery will allow Mann to establish actual hostility and actual knowledge that the accusations were false and defamatory.

This paragraph from "The Volokh Conspiracy", Mann v. Steyn -- Mann Wins Round One | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy, a generally conservative blog aimed at legal analysis.

In her two orders (NRO/Steyn, CEI/Simberg), Judge Combs-Greene characterizes the this as a “close case.” She recognizes Mann qualifies as a “public figure,” at least in the context of climate policy debates. This requires that Mann show that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with actual malice — i.e. actual knowledge that the allegdly defamatory claims were false or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims made. Despite this high burden, Judge Combs-Greene ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss. In her view, both sets of defendants made statements that alleged or implied facts that could be defamatory or otherwise actionable, e.g. that Mann engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. She further concluded that, despite the “slight” evidence of actual malice “at this stage” of the litigation, “[t]here is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false.” As discovery could produce sufficient evidence to support a claim of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, Judge Combs-Greene concluded the cases should not be dismissed.

IOW, the judge just barely ruled that the case might have some validity, so she punted.

In any case, the defense usually makes motions against any and all procedures in frivolous lawsuits like this, so claiming that Steyn has something to hide is silly.

 

[skookerasbil]

80% of Manns climate surface stations were defective and gave BS readings that he used!!! No wonder the dickhead doesn't want to bring his data to court.


http://www.surfacestations.org/


The guy is a fraud.

 

[skookerasbil]

faiLscIeNcE


Michael Mann did "hide the decline" but it's no big deal - Minnesotans For Global Warming

 

[skookerasbil]

All these fuckers fuck with the data!!!


Now ask yourself........why would real scientists do that?

 

[skookerasbil]

I'll tell you why.......because its the agenda. "Climate change" is a tool of the modern day statist >>>


“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."

- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment




The Green Agenda

 

[Abraham3]

So... you believe Steyn, NR and CEI have concluded thheir case? That might be true. Ever since they lost their attempt to have the complaint dismissed on the anti-SLAPP statute, their enthusiasm has seemed a little wan. When warned by Mann that he would sue if they did not retract Steyn and Simbergs's statements and apologize, National Review sneered and invited Mann to sue them, saying then that they'd use discovery to uncover Mann's manipulated data. But now... not so much. Perhaps that's because the counter discovery will allow Mann to establish actual hostility and actual knowledge that the accusations were false and defamatory.

This paragraph from "The Volokh Conspiracy", Mann v. Steyn -- Mann Wins Round One | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy, a generally conservative blog aimed at legal analysis.

In her two orders (NRO/Steyn, CEI/Simberg), Judge Combs-Greene characterizes the this as a “close case.” She recognizes Mann qualifies as a “public figure,” at least in the context of climate policy debates. This requires that Mann show that the allegedly defamatory comments were made with actual malice — i.e. actual knowledge that the allegdly defamatory claims were false or reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the claims made. Despite this high burden, Judge Combs-Greene ruled against the defendants on their motion to dismiss. In her view, both sets of defendants made statements that alleged or implied facts that could be defamatory or otherwise actionable, e.g. that Mann engaged in fraud or other disreputable conduct. She further concluded that, despite the “slight” evidence of actual malice “at this stage” of the litigation, “[t]here is however sufficient evidence to demonstrate some malice or the knowledge that the statements were false or made with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false.” As discovery could produce sufficient evidence to support a claim of actual malice or reckless disregard of the truth, Judge Combs-Greene concluded the cases should not be dismissed.

IOW, the judge just barely ruled that the case might have some validity, so she punted.

In any case, the defense usually makes motions against any and all procedures in frivolous lawsuits like this, so claiming that Steyn has something to hide is silly.

The threat to use discovery against Mann came from the editor of National Review. I suspect his lawyer had other ideas.

Keep in mind that the comments above re the decision on anti-SLAPP came from a blogger that favors Steyn and the National Review. Also keep in mind that the judge has not seen what discovery will reveal on either side.

 

[mamooth]

If Mann has nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to turn over the metadata in Canada last week?

Still parroting the strange fables of kiddie-fiddler O'Sullivan, I see.

Go on, stick with him to the end. After all, he is party-approved, so you don't have much choice.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

If Mann has nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to turn over the metadata in Canada last week?

Still parroting the strange fables of kiddie-fiddler O'Sullivan, I see.

Go on, stick with him to the end. After all, he is party-approved, so you don't have much choice.

So, you have some evidence that the piece in the OP is false?

The case wasn't thrown out because Mann refused to supply the required data?

The whole legal case in Canada has been a hoax?

mmmmmmkay.

 

[Abraham3]

The case was not thrown out. It is still underway. Check WUWT if you don't want to believe Mamooth. The problem is that John O'Sullivan, the man who IS Principia Scientific website, is an honest to god pathological liar and simply LIED about this point. I am not just badmouthing the man (well, I suppose I am) and I am not making this up. The man has serious psychological issues. He tells whoppers left and right and has been caught - in COURT - on several of them. The information has been posted here.

 

[skookerasbil]

Just a point to make here........intended for those taking a gander into this forum and who are non-AGW religious members........

The people in here who promote the established narrative on global warming indict ANYBODY who disagrees with them. ANYBODY. It matters not what they provide in terms of research, data or information. If it does not conform to the religion, it is fake 100% of the time. If they could shut out or otherwise ban me, SSDD, FlaCalTenn, Crusader Frank, Henry, Polar Bear, Helena, Westwall et. al.........they would in a microsecond.


Sound familiar?


These people are fascists........make no mistake.

 

[Abraham3]

If Mann has nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to turn over the metadata in Canada last week?

Still parroting the strange fables of kiddie-fiddler O'Sullivan, I see.

Go on, stick with him to the end. After all, he is party-approved, so you don't have much choice.

So, you have some evidence that the piece in the OP is false?

The case wasn't thrown out because Mann refused to supply the required data?

The whole legal case in Canada has been a hoax?

mmmmmmkay.

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan

Affidavits filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court libel litigation brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against climate science denier Timothy Ball reveal that Ball's collaborator and self-styled "legal advisor" has misrepresented his credentials and endured some significant legal embarrassments of his own.

The affidavits also reveal that Tim Ball was "aware of the charges against John O'Sullivan almost from the start" and has tried to distance himself from his erstwhile advisor and writing partner.

The affidavits [1, 2] come from research of science and medical writer Andrew Skolnick, who documents O'Sullivan's misrepresentations, backtracking and questionable behavior.

Tim Ball and John O'Sullivan had a close working relationship, even before Mann sued Ball for libel in March 2011. For example, they co-authored the climate science denial book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which was published in 2010.

Skolnick's evidence shows that O'Sullivan made a series of false claims, including:

o that he was an attorney with more than a decade of successful litigation in New York State and Federal courts;
o that he was employed by a major Victoria, B.C. (Canada) law firm that is representing Ball in the libel action;
o that he is a widely published writer, with credits in Forbes and the National Review;
o that he had received his law degree from the University College, Cork, Ireland and/or from the University of Surrey (O'Sullivan's actual legal accreditation, apparently obtained after the Mann-Ball action commenced, comes from an online degree mill, Hill University, which promises delivery in two weeks);
o that he is a member of the American Bar Association.

One affidavit includes an online comment in which O'Sullivan says, "For your information, I am a retired academic and I have litigated personally or assisted others in pro se litigation at every level of court there is in New York State as well as Federal level, for over a decade and never lost."

Although O'Sullivan admits in this particular comment that he is not, in fact, licensed to practice law, in the U.S. or the U.K., he adds, "I'm just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom."

Certainly, O'Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O'Sullivan himself went on to write an "erotic" "novel" with a startlingly similar storyline: Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.

Although eager to present himself as a science researcher of accomplishment - certainly Tim Ball's equal - Skolnick's research found that O'Sullivan is highly prone to error, whether intentional or not.

For example, O'Sullivan provided bogus contact information when registering as a member* with the New York County Lawyers' Association, an organization that apparently does not vet its members' qualifications (and does not, in any case, bestow the right to practice law). While O'Sullivan claimed to be with a firm named "Principia Scientific International," he provided the address of a construction company called Second Nature Construction; the phone number and fax number didn't belong to O'Sullivan or anyone connected to "Principia," either.

Principia certainly exists in some form. According to its website, O'Sullivan is its CEO, and Tim Ball is Chairman. Other members include climate deniers Paul Driessen, Paul Reiter and more. Principia notes that it operates as a "private association rather than a charitable foundation. This is because PSI chooses to operate with the relative freedom of any start up association that has yet to determine whether it may fulfil its long term purpose as either a business with the private profit motive or a charity."

This information emerged, and became relevant to this most recent libel action against Tim Ball, in part because Ball himself, in his Response to Civil Claim, stated that his communications with O'Sullivan were subject to solicitor-client privilege.

Mann then filed a reply, pointing out the facts documented in Skolnick's affidavits. As Mann's lawsuit proceeds, the court will inevitably rule on Ball's claim for "solicitor-client" privilege.

In the meantime, Ball has not submitted any affidavit from O'Sullivan attesting to his qualifications as Ball's legal advisor. If he did, O'Sullivan would be subject to cross-examination by Michael Mann's lawyer.


* The original post mistakenly said O'Sullivan was registering as an 'associate' member; in fact he registered as a member and was granted membership, despite not having a valid law degree or Bar certification in New York. We regret the error.

Affidavits in Michael Mann Libel Suit Reveal Astonishing Facts About Tim Ball Associate John O'Sullivan | DeSmogBlog