Damn this is getting good.
Briefly, on how this case got started, from a post at Climate Progress:
The kick-off for the lawsuit was actually a piece written by Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which referred to Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” because he “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.” The editors eventually removed the offending sentences, but not before Mark Steyn picked them up at National Review’s online blog. Steyn said he wasn’t sure he’d have “extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point.” He then went on to call Mann’s work on the famous “hockey stick” graph “fraudulent.” So Mann sued Simberg, Steyn, CEI and National Review for defamation.
Also see Rabett Run: Mann vs Steyn Lurches Forward.
–Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently is a factual allegation that can be proven true or false, not mere hyperbolic opinionating. If it is false it is defamatory, and if it is made with actual malice it is actionable. So said DC Superior Court Frederick Weisberg in tossing out motions by defendants National Review et al. to dismiss Prof. Michael Mann’s defamation complaint — thus moving the case a step toward discovery proceedings and a jury trial.
The matter before the court in this latest step of the thus-far procedurally rather tangled case was on the separate special motions of defendants Mark Steyn and National Review, Inc. and of defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg to dismiss Michael Mann’s amended defamation complaint. On January 22 DC Superior Court Judge Weisberg denied defendants’ motions to dismiss under the DC Anti-SLAPP Act and on one other ground.
The judge’s ruling, and specifically what he says in his order, looks good for Prof. Mann’s position. Here’s a bit of what Judge Weisberg said:
Opinions and rhetorical hyperbole are protected speech under the First Amendment. Arguably, several of defendants’ statements fall into these protected categories. Some of defendants’ statements, however, contain what could reasonably be understood as assertions of fact. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff on each of Counts I-VI, including the Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress alleged in Count VI as to both sets of defendants.
So much for the argument that what Simberg and Steyn were doing was mere opinionating, mere rhetorical flourishes. Judge Weisberg appears to slam dunk that position. It’s against the law to accuse someone, with malice, of scientific fraud, if the accusation won’t stand up in court (and not just to the satisfaction of the defendants and their support subculture).
Weisberg continued –
In Count VII, plaintiff alleges that CEI published, and National Review republished, the following defamatory statement: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” The allegedly defamatory aspect of this sentence is the statement that plaintiff “molested and tortured data,” not the rhetorically hyperbolic comparison to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. …
The statement “he has molested and tortured data” could easily be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff distorted, manipulated, or misrepresented his data. Certainly the statement is capable of a defamatory meaning, which means the questions of whether it was false and made with “actual malice” are questions of fact for the jury. … [T]o state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation….
Well that’s interesting. Commenters on the case have focused on the rhetoric of the Jerry Sandusky analogy, while perhaps not keeping their eye on the “molested and tortured data” part. The defendants and their support subculture have been throwing around this sort of casually malicious and intellectually sloppy defamation of climate scientists so much, for so long, that perhaps they’re surprised to learn they can be busted for it.
Weisberg:
Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm. …
Turning to the special motion of defendants National Review and Steyn to dismiss Count VII, when Mr. Steyn republished Mr. Simberg’s words, he stopped short of wholeheartedly endorsing the offensive Sandusky metaphor. Nevertheless, Mr. Steyn did not disavow the assertion of fact that Dr. Mann had “molested and tortured data,” and he added insult to injury by describing Dr. Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” … In context, calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” is itself defamatory…
Supporters of the defendants made a point of accusing the previous judge in the case of incompetence and other bad things. It will be interesting to see if they continue to play that card by slamming Judge Weisberg as well. They seemed to think the previous judge’s rulings would be trashed and re-done, but as it turns out they got essentially the same thing from Judge Weisberg in this new ruling.
We hope this ends the roadblocks to moving on to the discovery phase. The defendants may appeal Judge Weisberg’s ruling, but the opportunities for delay seem to be running out. We have the impression that National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute aren’t particularly eager to be opened up to discovery. On the other hand, Prof. Mann apparently isn’t too worried about it as he pushes his case forward — contrary to what his attackers always seem to assume.
Exactly. Deniers always talk about some kind of nefarious plot that Mann and others are part of – which presumably would be laid bare in any court proceeding. But instead of welcoming those purported revelations, it’s the deniers who are scurrying for cover in this case.
Lay in popcorn and stay tuned.
The tobacco industry eventually lost the fight to deceive people about the cancer risks of smoking when memos showing that they knew they were lying came to light as part of discovery motions. It is entirely possible that similar e-mails on the efforts to deceive people about global warming have been sent by or to the defendants in this case. THAT is the biggest issue at hand here. Mann’s suit itself is virtually a foregone conclusion. Barring a hard-core climate change denier getting on to the jury, which should be impossible unless they lie during jury selection (which is itself grounds for dismissal from the jury), this defamation case has always been a slam dunk. The real question is whether we’ll get to see behind the curtain of the denial campaign.
There will be a few more desperate (and completely futile) appeals for dismissal from the defendants and then we’ll be at the point of discovery. I half expect the defendants to offer to settle at that point… with the possible exception of Steyn. He seems just crazy enough to plow ahead.
So why won’t Mann released his data and code. An experiment that cannot be replicated is a filed experiment. End of.
2009 called, they want their idiotic talking points back.
The never -ending stream of horsepucky from the mindless denialists continues with jeremy’s “contribution”
The Penn State investigatory committee had this to say:
“The Investigatory Committee established that Dr. Mann, in all of his published studies, precisely identified the source(s) of his raw data and, whenever possible, made the data and or links to the data available to other researchers. These actions were entirely in line with accepted practices for sharing data in his field of research….”
“Thus, the Investigatory Committee concluded that the manner in which Dr. Mann used and shared source codes has been well within the range of accepted practices in his field.”
Others have “investigated” Mann and debunked the accusations. Others have replicated his work. I hope he goes after all of the denialists that have repeatedly defamed him. Maybe jeremy will then see truth rather than repeat lies.
climateprogress published a piece back in 2010 that listed a number of articles that jeremy and other Mann detractors should read
thinkprogress.org/…/michael-mann-hockey-stick-exone…
Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data – NYT
Mann Cleared in Final Inquiry by Penn State – NYT
2nd Penn State review clears climate scientist – Associated Press
Climategate Continues to Crumble – Time
Investigation clears ‘climate-gate’ researcher of wrongdoing – The Hill
An End to Climategate? Penn State Clears Michael Mann – CBSNews.com
Penn State clears Michael Mann again; legal battle continues in Virginia – Nature
‘Climategate’ scientist cleared a 2nd time – UPI
Penn State Clears Climate Scientist Mann of Climategate Wrongdoing – ENS
Climategate’s death rattle – Discover Magazine
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again – Scientific American
Climate scientist Mann gets final exoneration from Penn State – Grist
Climategate Scientist Michael E. Mann Exonerated – Huffington Post
Penn State panel clears climatologist Michael Mann in e-mail case – Philly Inquirer
Climate scientist cleared by Penn State panel – Washington Examiner
University panel clears Mann – Daily Collegian
Penn State University panel clears global-warming scholar – Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Penn State Probe Clears Mann Of Wrongdoing – State College News
Michael Mann exonerated yet yet again – Science blog
The link didn’t take—try this—well worth reading
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/01/206340/michael-mann-hockey-stick-exonerated
Yes, lots of popcorn! (And more cowbell, too!)
O happy day!
I wonder what will slither out as their laundry is hung out to dry…
I would also add that a reasonable jury, in considering motives for the defamation, would be likely to find that the direct comparison to a high-profile convicted child rapist is evidence of intent to cause harm to Mann.
Michael has suffered many disparaging remarks and allegations since the “Climate Gate” BS and I, for one, am glad that this case is moving forward. All that the ‘deniers’ ever seem to employ is the use of ad hominem attacks as they cannot honestly refute the science.
It will be interesting to see if the lame stream media covers this story and if so how.
I agree that the attacks in this case crossed the line of common decency, are malicious and the defendants should be found culpable.
Ed
NASA’s Earth Observatory has a rather stunning pair of photos of California contrasting the snow and vegetation conditions of last week compared to one year ago.
http://tinyurl.com/kmd6ol2
Weather Underground’s Dr. Jeff Masters has more on the wicked dry weather in California:
http://tinyurl.com/lpyduf3
Great links.
Ray – January and February are the wet months. No rain is predicted. If that happens, it could have economic consequences. We had Midwest drought and flooding. Let’s hope we don’t suffer crop failures in multiple locations. We have seen extreme temps everywhere. Thus far only one location at a time. When they start hitting multiple locations, we are in for a real wild ride. Hurry up solutions, we already feel the pain. The inertia is too much. We have been lulled into a false sense of security by projections in 2100, and by the scope of the problem being so large compared to our personal lives. We don’t get an astronaut view or a satellite camera that can zoom in and out over the whole earth to see the devastation over decades.
Hi Christopher,
Re: “January and February are the wet months. No rain is predicted.”
Cali can be schizophrenic when it comes to winter precip. I traveled to Santa Cruz at the end of January, 2008. It rained ferociously the entire five days I was in the Bay Area. This year…. not a drop. Go figure.
***
Re: “We have been lulled into a false sense of security by projections in 2100.”
Right. And this is being addressed by certain jurisdictions such as NYC and Miami which are at the bleeding edge when it comes to sea level rise. What these city bureacracies are doing is planning based on what’s expected by 2040 or 2060, so that the impacts seem more real to the public which will be paying for amelioration schemes. This was noted in the Dr. Jim White presentation I linked to last night on another Crock thread.
***
Re: “We don’t get an astronaut view or a satellite camera that can zoom in and out over the whole earth to see the devastation over decades.”
Actually we do. We have the GRACE and MODIS satellites among others and there’s going to be a plethora of new weather and climate related satellites launched in 2014. http://tinyurl.com/l2kldvw
Cheerio!
PS: Off the Radar…. Reports are emerging of a new study to determine the role of recent Washington and Colorado voter initiatives in creating this winter’s persistent West Coast high. Details to follow, if I can remember them. 🙂
The pictures we have in our minds are Sandy, withered crops, Texas drought, Australia burning and flooding. To 90% of us, its just, the poor SOBs, glad its not me. Not so much anymore. I wish every gas station had a huge billboard of the tar sands mess in Canada. Same thing with dealer show rooms. Commercials that focused on the tailpipe and showed glamorous girls adoring exhausts. Kind of like the Leaf commercial with the two stroke alarm clock and shaver. An amusing way at looking at a somber reality. Its hard to look at these devastations without a heavy heart. It hurts. Thats why I am of mixed emotions and mind. I just can’t give up. There are and will be impacts. Should we just quit and start smoking the best weed we can find? Not me. No we are not turning into Venus. Yes there are real and serious consequences. Its a choice. Its always been a choice. Death was always near in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s. Its nothing new. Whether its personal mortality or collective. We grew up with nuclear death nearby. Then personal and collective mortality of a generation facing mandatory draft and war. Polio. Looking at today like its different? Yes, its global. So is nuclear winter. So is CFSs. So was the Black Plague. Its sucks, but thats how it is. Do something, don’t get paralyzed by it, and live a little. Try not to get sucked into negativity. Its typical American optimism that buoyed a generation. We need that optimism to face a new generation of issues. Only this time its not grow, grow, grow, build, build, build. Its more like, whats inside becomes whats outside. Look inside and grow. Look outside and make sure its good.
I laid out a lot of coin to be able to do most of my driving on electrons instead of hydrocarbons. (So far, my consumption is down about 2/3 over the previous car, which was a diesel which I hypermiled at almost every opportunity.) This also means my driving is over 20% carbon-free, given the generation mix that serves Michigan.
I’m expecting silicon-graphene or carbon-sulfur anodes for Li-ion cells to hit the market shortly. That will kick performance of batteries up, and bulk and possibly cost down. Possibly something like iron-salt-air batteries will see utility use not long after (EOS is already pushing zinc-air) and then be packaged for mobile use. At 1.4 kWh/liter, that’s good enough to kill diesel for over-the-road applications.
We can kill petroleum, all we need is the energy to fill the batteries when they come in. But you know that waiting for the wind to blow or the sun to shine won’t do the job.
This is MISO, midwest independent system operator wind, a lot of it likely from Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois. You won’t have to wait long.
https://www.misoenergy.org/MarketsOperations/RealTimeMarketData/Pages/RealTimeWindGeneration.aspx
I have been monitoring it for about a month. Rarely drops below 5G. Long periods of greater than 8G. Has yet to be zero. Its hard to beat Midwest wind. Ever been to Oklahoma? Iowa? Kansas? Interestingly, even Minnesota, with all its abundant solar compared to Germany, is now seeing the light on solar:) When solar and wind are combined, the probable availability goes up, documented in Western Wind Integration Study prev. cit. Add run of river hydro, biomass…, Iowa has a lot of hog bellies. Read methane. Farms are not just for ethanol anymore.
http://www.startribune.com/business/238322571.html
With falling solar prices and doubling capacity every 2 years, its an unstoppable juggernaut. The sky’s the limit:)
Crossed OK several times, both E-W and N-S. Ditto KS, and have stayed a while in Wichita. I’ve lived in Iowa and Minnesota. I’ve also seen Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I’ve seen whitecaps on the Transcan’s retention ponds in SK.
Yes, there’s a lot of energy there. But energy flows are not capacity. It’s not available WHEN you need it. Even my former co-blogger Gail Tverberg, with whom I often butted heads, will tell you at length why this is a major problem.
I recall something quite some time ago about solar being a good match for MN’s air-conditioning peaks, because of the generally sunny summer conditions. I think the trick of making ice using snow guns to make ice and holding it under insulated tarps to supply chilled water in summer was more clever. I have no idea why that didn’t catch on.
What’s the acceptable probability of being unable to get to work on a particular day because your car battery doesn’t have the charge? How much food can you allow to spoil in a semi-truck because it doesn’t have the juice to get it to supermarkets?
How colossal a battery do you need to avoid these outcomes? For that matter, how big a wind farm? My BOTE calculation was that powering the US LDV fleet would need on the order of 200 GW(e) average. (Your ISO generation dropped below 4 GW in the 1900h slot today, and is barely above 8 GW at 2300h.)
Run the numbers. Calculate the amount of material required. Compare this to world inventory and annual production. Get back to me on your preliminary feasibility study.
Without numbers, you’re just hand-waving. Let’s do the math and see what might work and what can’t.
“Politically incorrect” energy can do this job handily. It remains to be seen if “politically correct” energy can, and plenty of people besides me think that’s a fool’s errand.
You have been reading “wind can power 100%” literally. I am not saying 100% wind and solar only, neither are the scenarios. They all go for a mix. Central, distributed, solar thermal with heat storage, pumped storage. When all the sources are mixed its much more like todays mix, only hydro, geothermal, tide, wave, biomass, pumped storage, .. are substituted for other baseline, and other clever strategies such as V2G and demand metering are added. Vermont and Maine wind and tide can pump hydro Quebec. Midwest wind is strong and steady. I think there is some time to develop solutions and sort out better storage. I expect you are right about batteries. Now that EVs are gaining volume, there is more pressure to lower battery pack cost and increase range/capacity. Solar has several competitor technologies now. I don’t know about long haul tractor. Even tho there are possibilities, I think electrified rail is better for long haul, using the rails as conductors. Medium haul remains the problem. Short haul is where there are already some great apps for EV. Take a look at Balqon. They are already doing it. Port of LA. Air transport is a big problem. The other problem is growing the all of that quickly. I am impatient with the EV market growth. The hybrid VW two seater has most of what I like in an EV. True low drag aero. Tesla is good, but the exposed rear wheels and big mirrors, ouch. The mirrors are a legal thing. Tesla is working on it. Cameras. Thats the ticket.
That’s all well and good, but other elements of the mix have “variability disease” even worse than wind. I’m sitting here in blizzard conditions right now (or at least they were at 3 PM, when I last ventured out of the house to get things for the bug that’s ailing me) and PV would be zero, solar thermal would be lucky to average 5%, and the question of what could pump up the pumped storage would be on everyone’s mind. I’ll grant you this, MISO’s wind graph hasn’t dipped below 8 GW since the start of today’s graph at 2300h. But how much would it cost to get that wind power to substitute for the gas-fired furnace that’s keeping this house from freezing? Freezing is too easy; push something too close to a window, and the glass frosts up. Yes, they are all double-pane.
V2G assumes you have enough vehicular storage to matter. Demand metering is a euphemism for leaving the lowest bidders without. I don’t mind shifting such demand to e.g. LPG-fired cogeneration, but not leaving folks in the cold.
But are you able to absorb the implications of me being right? A vehicle battery that’s sufficient for 3-4 hours of highway driving (Tesla Model S) is woefully deficient for buffering a day or days of RE lull. If you don’t have something to charge that battery when the user needs it charged, the whole thing falls apart.
What you need to de-carbonize this system is nuclear electric generation. Electric RRs move the freight to terminals overnight. Battery-electric delivery tractors carry the freight to destinations during the day. Those tractors move trash back to rail terminals on the return trip. Nuclear-electric plasma arcs convert the trash to synthesis gas and a bit of slag overnight. The slag doesn’t close the loop completely, but it’s close. The detail is that you need it almost EVERY night. You don’t have the luxury of waiting for the weather to be favorable.
Balqon needs a charge every night. Can you wait for the wind to be blowing to do that? How many spare batteries can you have, waiting for the sun to shine?
We need carbon-free energy. We do not need it to be “renewable” by current definitions.
Here’s a case where the scientist defendants were cleared of wrongdoing [the claim was that they were manipulating data to make it seem as though NZ was warming faster than it really was, based on 7 temperature stations], but because the plaintiff was a charitable trust and not a person, they’re probably going to get away without having to pay the court cost, indeed deferring the amount onto the NZ taxpayers. The original cost was $89,000 for the first case, but when the scientists won, there was an appeal by the denialists which pushed the cost up higher (probably doubling, but I’m not sure). In the end the denialists were left with a six-figure bill and they don’t have the money to pay it.
They’ve hidden behind their charitable organization to alleviate any personal responsibility, which sets a terrible precedent: that you can falsely accuse people of wrongdoing without having any repercussions when your accusation is proven false, as long as you work behind the smokescreen of a charitable trust to do so.
The means denialists can effectively use taxpayer money to harass, accuse, etc. scientists without they themselves experiencing any downside.
http://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972
Corporate tax abuse of 501c3 is rampant. It should have resulted in the IRS shutting down bogus fronts for FF interests, tobacco, etc. Instead, it wound up being stopped by claims that the IRS targeted them. Completely bonkers. They are supposed to investigate. There is too much corporate money and power behind it which steamrollered opposition. Too bad. Some you win, some you lose. It looks like individual vs individual has a better chance. Corporations seem content to support useful idiot loud mouths that libel and slander until they become a headache. Then they let them hang. They much prefer the sneaky route. Fund Heartland until they get exposed, then make public statements supporting green, while searching for a new secret fund. Its all about covering tracks and greenwashing, while BAU. Hope Mann kicks the miscreants to the curb. It could be achieving a righteous effect already, even without a win.
Here’s a Canadian example of climatologist vs slanderer:
http://www.iposgoode.ca/2010/05/climatologist-to-test-canadas-defamation-laws/