Some 12 years in the making, climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation suit against denialist Loon Mark Steyn and others just wrapped.
It’s like reliving the bad old days.
Above, I worked with Mann over some weeks to weed thru the minutia of the climate-gate “Hide the decline” nonsense.
On Monday, conservative blogger Mark Steyn wrapped up his confrontational cross-examination of Michael Mann, the climate scientist who is suing him and another climate denier for defamation in Washington, D.C. Superior Court.
Steyn appeared determined to portray Mann, currently the Distinguished Professor of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, as untrustworthy and deceitful, in an aggressive manner suggesting that more than a decade of litigation in this case has done little to dampen his contempt for Mann’s allegations, or for the science of climate change.
It was Mann’s fourth and final day on the stand.
–
As part of the defense, Steyn et al showed a circa 2010 Richard Muller climate denial lecture.
I’m sure they probably didn’t show my own 2014 interview with Muller, who, after a deep data dive, completely agreed with the science consensus on warming.
Among other gems, defense introduced forgotten gems of climate denial “humor” like this one, I guess because they thought it would sway jurors?
More Desmog:
As DeSmog has previously reported, in 2012 Mann sued Steyn and Rand Simberg, another right-wing writer, charging that their attempts to discredit his work in print and online had damaged Mann’s reputation and led to a decline in the scientist’s ability to secure research funding.
In a 2011 blog post for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative think tank that has long espoused climate science denial and delay, Simberg stated that Mann had “molested and tortured data,” comparing him to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach imprisoned for child molestation. Steyn, who was then a regular guest on Fox News, quoted and amplified Simberg’s charges in the National Review, a prominent conservative magazine.
——
Video sampling here – Steyn has moved from climate denial to anti-vax nuttery.
Below, Steyn also has a no-doubt-lucrative side career as a lounge singer.
Actual iterations of Steyn’s Twitter/X page:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is relevant today because members of that group went on to form another climate denial think tank, the American Traditions Institute, which then renamed itself E&E Legal. The group moved on from abusing, defaming and harassing climate scientists, porting the very same tactics to a hyper local level, where they are being used against farmers across the midwest whose only crime is wishing to save family farms by siting clean energy to diversify incomes.
Steyn’s comment about the UK government partying while preventing the public from having meetings, is true. It was a scandal that cost the Prime Minister his position. They did have parties in Downing Street in breach of the government’s rules on social distancing. That part of his statement isn’t ‘vax nuttery’.
Yes… that happened – no surprise given Boris’s well-documented entitlement issues. But I’m not clear on why this observation is relevant to Steyn’s defense in this case…
Sorry, but I think Mann is toast. I’ve been avidly watching the trial on WEBEX. Steyn’s disadvantages of acting as his own lawyer are offset by his considerable oratory skills and his past court record, but I think the real star of this show is Rand Simberg’s lawyer, Victoria Weatherford. She’s really good!
The word “trick” was never an issue. That’s a strawman chosen by apologists. If they knew how to use a dictionary (trick, n.: a clever way to solve a problem; an act of prostitution: ‘she turned tricks to pay off her student loans’) they could enjoy the consolation of being able to rebut ONE indictment of the Gaters. Never mind that it was an accusation nobody had actually made.
Here’s a quick scientific literacy test which you won’t pass, because climate gullibilists don’t have scientific minds.
Q: Pick the most scientifically indefensible word in this sentence:
“I’ve just completed using Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the temps from each series […] to hide the decline.”
Obviously the word “context” doesn’t exist in the right wing dictionary for dummies. Along with the word honesty.
Meanwhile, predictably, the planet heats.
Keith, why would anyone give dummies a right-wing dictionary? Haven’t they got enough problems in life?
Since you’ve apparently read it, let us know any other words you can’t find the meaning of and we’ll do our best to help using our centre-leaning vocabularies.
Whoa, argument by cherry-picked dictionary definition!
“Trick” is often used to mean “clever technique” in technical discussions.
I’ve heard it used by math professors, engineering professionals and mechanical design.
We’ve used it in software development.
I’m guessing by this ignorant argument that you don’t have either a scientific or engineering background.
rhymeswithgoalie,
““Trick” is often used to mean “clever technique” in technical discussions.”
I know. I just *said* that.
“I’m guessing by this ignorant argument that you don’t have either a scientific or engineering background.”
So by saying exactly the same thing as you (only sooner), I’m displaying scientific and engineering ignorance?
Why so hard on yourself, dude?
I take it you didn’t even have the confidence to take a guess at the scientific literacy mini-quiz.
Yeah, probably for the best.
“… climate gullibilists don’t have scientific minds.”
Christ… we get rid of the Ham sandwich just to get another Dunning-Kruger graduate? Lucky us!
It’s the same ham sandwich, the same automaton repeating the same pre-programed responses
they are in unlimited supply
Who is this “Ham” you people seem to miss so droolingly? If their prose is as salty as mine I can’t wait to meet them.
Q: Pick the most scientifically indefensible word in this sentence:
I would say […] is the answer.
MEV,
“I would say […] is the answer.”
So you don’t approve of bits being hidden?
Did you watch the full video?
I just did then. Since your question was vague, I watched all of them just to be safe. I now understand I was wrong to doubt the science. I feel so foolish. What a waste of 15 years. Now I have to make up for lost time. Any advice from people here who are walking the walk? Obviously the first thing I’m doing is trading my jet in for a boat with sails and solar panels.
watch the video at top.
Will clarify a lot.
A monkey on Faux News said the same thing, are you repeating what you heard on tv?