The Mann fraud suit continues to grind through the American Justice system. If I understand Popehat correctly, the defendants have appealed the lower court Anti-SLAPP ruling. The higher court has decided to ask the plaintiffs and defendants to present more evidence about whether the ANTI-SLAPP ruling can be appealed before the defamation case proceeds. After hearing that, the higher court will decide whether it can be appealed before the defamation case proceeds. If the ANTI-SLAPP ruling can be appealed before the defamatino case, then the next step would, presumably, be an actually appeal of the ANTI-SLAPP ruling. Otherwise, they move to the defation case, with the possibility of an appeal on the ANTI-SLAPP afterwards.
Seems to me the only sane way for the law to be written is to permit the ANTI-SLAPP ruling to be appealed before the defamation case. Otherwise, the ANTI-SLAPP doesn’t really function as preventing nuisance suits to inhibit free speech. But law are not always written in ways that actually are sane. So, we’ll see.
I wonder whether the plaintiffs and named defendants will all still be alive before the end of this thing. They aren’t terribly old. But this is one heck of a slow process!
The big question is this — will Steyn be denied his much-sought opportunity to slap Mann upside of the head in a jury trial?
The problem for the defendants lies with the fact that the DC Anti-Slapp statute does not expressly provide for an interlocutory appeal. Most Anti-Slapp statutes do. Mann gets to argue that if the DC Council wanted denial of the Anti-Slapp motion to be immediately appealable, it would have said so.
I handled one immense 42 USC Sec. 1983 Civil Rights case that went on for more than 10 years. (Glad it was my one and only case) During the course of the litigation, the Supreme Court held that individual state official defendants had a right to interlocutory appeals even though such a right was not part of the statute. That ruling under the Sec. 1983 case presents a very analogous situation to that present in the Mann lawsuit.
JD
Seems to me the only sane way for the law to be written is to permit the ANTI-SLAPP ruling to be appealed before the defamation case.
Strongly agree (with you and, unfortunately, with WJR). Remember also that when the appeals court dismissed the prior appeal, it didn’t say “You’re appealing too early – wait ’til the case is over” — as it easily could’ve done. It just said, “This one’s moot” and explicitly dismissed without prejudice to later appeals. So that may mean it’s friendly to an interlocutory appeal.
But we’ll only know when they say.
Lucia,
“I wonder whether the plaintiffs and named defendants will all still be alive before the end of this thing. ”
.
this is SLAPP suit; the plaintiff probably doesn’t care if it drags on for a decade. The defendants may want to proceed, but the plaintiff can probably drag it out for avery long time(at high cost, of course).
From the DC Code:
§ 11-721. Orders and judgments of the Superior Court.
I do not see how the denial of the Anti-Slapp motion qualifies for an interlocutory appeal under this statute, and Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals seem to defer to the statute. It does not appear that the DC Court of Appeals recognizes a Common Law Writ of Certiorari either.
Will J. Richardson: The problem for the defendants lies with the fact that the DC Anti-Slapp statute does not expressly provide for an interlocutory appeal. Most Anti-Slapp statutes do. Mann gets to argue that if the DC Council wanted denial of the Anti-Slapp motion to be immediately appealable, it would have said so.
The legislative history (page 7, analyses of subsection (d)) shows that the DC Council reluctantly removed a provision providing for immediate appeal, because the DC Court of Appeals ruled in Stuart v. Walker that such a provision would exceed the Council’s authority. The Council declared that it still supported the purpose of the provision.
MJW. Thanks for that citation. I wonder why the Appellate Rules otherwise defer to the statute on the question of what decisions are appealable as of right?
Will J. Richardson, my understanding from reading the case is that the D.C. Code specifically allows the DC Court of Appeals to review only “final orders,” and the court held that whether an order is final is a question of law, so it was beyond the Council’s power to decide.
I should mention that the U.S. Congress controls DC, and Congress delegated limited power to the DC Council.
MJW I see now, I had not read footnote 3 in Stuart, which states:
Stuart v. Walker, 6 A.3d 1215, 1217 FN 3 (2010).
It seems Mann may win the appealability issue, because the denial of the Anti-Slapp is not a Final Order as defined the the Stuart Court.
The Home Rule Act (the Congressional act that delegates power to the Council) specifically denies the Council the power to alter the composition or jurisdiction of the local courts. D.C. Code § 11-721(a) grants the DC Court of Appeals jurisdiction to hear appeals from final orders and three specific types of interlocutory orders.
(Edited after I saw Will J. Richardson’s response to my previous comment):
I think there’s a good argument that the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is a final order. A number of courts have held they are, since the right not to be tried can never be restored on appeal. Anti-SLAPP protection is analogous to immunity.
Stein v. US, where the DC Court of Appeals held that a denial of immunity from prosecution is immediately appealable. The court says the order denying immunity is not actually a final order, but falls within a narrow exception termed the “collateral order” doctrine. The doctrine applies to a “small class of appealable, albeit non-final, orders which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.”
In Stein v. US, the court says of the collateral order doctrine:
I think the first and third requirement are fairly clearly met by the anti-SLAPP denial. The second is less clear, since some of the issues that must be addressed under the anti-SLAPP law are related to the defenses that will be asserted if the case goes to trial. However, something similar could be said for the immunity from prosecution decision; in fact, it was said by the government, but rejected by the court. Nevertheless, I suspect that that will be the deciding factor if the court of appeals decides not to hear the appeal. (It’s unfortunate the court will probably go into the case with an ideological bias against the defendants, since in a close case, it might influence the court’s decision.)
MJW The Stein case is interesting. It is closely analogous in that the Anti-Slapp act is effectively an immunity law, and going to trial cannot be remedied on plenary appeal. In the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, the issue would be addressed by a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is why I mentioned the lack of such Writ in the Court’s jurisdictional statute. It is also interesting that the Court of Appeal denies it has authority to enlarge its jurisdiction beyond that granted by Title 11 of the Home Rule statute, but by adopting the collateral order doctrine effectively exercises all writs powers held only by Article III courts, not by courts of limited jurisdiction under Title 11 of the Home Rule Statute. All academic at this point of course.
Interestingly (at least to me), while the DC court frames the collateral order doctrine as applying to non-final orders, which seems to require that it expand its jurisdiction beyond what the DC Code allows, the main SCOTUS case it relies on, Mitchell v. Forsyth, calls a denial of immunity from lawsuits “an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.” (Mitchell v. Forsyth is actually somewhat more similar to anti-SLAPP than is Stein, since it involves immunity from civil suits, not prosecution.)
MJW and Will J. Richardson: Your exchange on the appealability of pre-trial anti-SLAPP rulings is informed and erudite. As a bonus, it can be followed by those of us with no familiarity as to how legal matters like this are handled. Thanks.
The “defamatino”: the fundamental particle that transmits the force of defamation. 🙂
UnfrozenCavemanMD (Comment #129130)
+1
AMac,
Yes, erudite and informative…. but, sadly, the information suggests that the DC anti-SLAPP legislation is toothless and worthless. If you have money/influence and want to punish your critics, bring a SLAPP case in DC…. you can punish them without limitations.
Steyn reports on the latest (but MJW and WJR have already discussed the legal issues).
SteveF,
That’s what this appeal will really decide…if the court takes the appeal early and reverses, it’ll send a message to D.C. judges to stop denying strong motions to dismiss in SLAPP cases in the hopes they’ll settle before review.
If they don’t, maybe it’ll send a message to amend the damned statute to allow for immediate review…too late to save Steyn & Co. but maybe in time to put an end to these tactics.
Re: Joseph W. (May 3 16:02),
.
But does Steyn want to be saved?
It is not unreasonable to think that Steve McIntyre, John Christy, and Judith Curry might all be called as civil trial witnesses in a venue where Mann has no other option but to face his critics directly if he wishes to pursue his lawsuit to the end.
A question for the Blackboard’s lawyers — assuming that Mann’s legal team is intending to make the entire process just as long and expensive as possible, just how long could this lawsuit go on before it is definitely known that a trial either will, or will not, occur?
Joseph W
It is a hostile appeals panel, appointed by democrat presidents. They will NEVER stop Mann’s case. The thing that makes this case so damaging to public discourse is the political slant of the judges in the DC courts. They are allowing Mann to abuse the court system to punish political opponents. The judges are the real problem; they are corroding the fabric of the court system itself.
SteveF:
Ideological bias may not save Mann though it is pretty clear he forum-shopped big time.
The fact is, the standard he wants the court to apply is so destructive of the first amendment (not to mention, silly) it can’t be allowed to stand. The mainstream media has already weighed in in part on that. Therefore, It could be that the court would like to make this go away early rather than drag it out to an inevitable high profile victory for the evil denialists.
The inevitable discovery litigation involving Mann’s well-established aversion to disclosure would be messy and tedious and probably appealed. Judges hate hassle regardless of their ideological predispositions.
1. The assumption here is that trial judges will never grant motions for defendants under the anti-SLAPP statue. That appears to be wrong
2. The ability to appeal anti-SLAPP turndowns allows defendants to drag out cases, not plaintiffs.
3. As Popeyhat points out, the court needs to settle the issue no matter what the outcome of Mann vs. Steyn is because it will come up again and again.
The Rabbett seems to have forgotten what the first judge wrote about the law.
The LAW says ” then the [anti-SLAPP] motion shall be granted unless the responding party [that is, the plaintiff] demonstrates that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits,”
The JUDGE says ” the Plaintiff must present a sufficient legal basis for his claims, and if he fails to do so, the [anti-SLAPP] motion should be granted.” But, “at this stage, the evidence before the court does not amount to a showing of clear and convincing as to ‘actual malice’, however there is sufficient evidence to find that further discovery may uncover evidence of ‘actual malice’. ”
So, at the stage at (pre-discovery) at which the anti-SLAPP decision must be made, the judge held that under the law, the DEFENDENT has the burden to prove that he WOULD PROBABLY win. The PLAINTIFF has the burden to show he has a LEGAL BASIS under which he MIGHT win.
Given that the point is to avoid taking depositions, and gathering documents, and other forms of getting evidence and satisfying burdens, it would seem that under the precedent set, very very few anti-SLAPP motions in DC could ever be granted.
Pouncer (Comment #129139) May 3rd, 2014 at 7:46 pm
“Given that the point is to avoid taking depositions, and gathering documents, and other forms of getting evidence and satisfying burdens, it would seem that under the precedent set, very very few anti-SLAPP motions in DC could ever be granted.”
Maybe so. But the alternative is to expect judges to make findings of fact before the evidence has been assembled and presented. They seem to be resisting that, and sticking to the law. I think that is understandable.
What Nick said.
Make no mistake, whatever the ruling people claiming virtue here (and note that Eli and Nick are not) will scream like stuck pigs when it is applied to some other case, no matter what the ruling on this issue in this case is.
Eli,
Huh? (1) I don’t know who you think is “claiming virtue here”. But (2) what I think makes sense as “sane” law would be the same irrespective of who the plaintiffs are.
That said: in my opinoin, laws ought to be applied as written and it’s possible that the law, as written did not permit appeal of the Anti-Slap determination. I think this would be a nutty way to write such a law– but it might be the way it’s written.
As the Mikado famously said
Lucia, read what Ken White wrote, the reason the DC Anti SLAPP statue is written that way is that there was a ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals that the home rule doesn’t allow them to make stuff immediately appealable. This is a hole the Court of Appeals dug for itself and now has to get out of. Most likely they rule that there is no right of immediate appeal to avoid the contradictions.
You have been going on for months about “ought to be a law” There ain’t. Sorry about that.
No one’s said that. No one at all.
But if trial judges are slow to dismiss SLAPP cases, they certainly can have a chilling effect on free speech. This is true regardless of whether they’re putting an ideological thumb on the scales or just hoping the parties will settle.
Incorrect. Which alternative “drags it out” depends on who wins the appeal.
If the appeal is granted, i.e., the appeals court agrees that the case should’ve been dismissed in the first place (as this one should’ve been), then that cuts the case off faster.
Put another way: It’s probably faster and definitely less painful to go through motion to dismiss –> denial –> appeal –> dismissal
than
motion to dismiss –> denial –> discovery –> trial –> appeal –> dismissal (cancelling the trial result).
Furthermore, since discovery is normally stayed during appeal, the parties suffer less while waiting for the decision. (Discovery and discovery disputes can be extremely time- and resource-consuming.) That fits the overall purpose of the SLAPP law — to decrease the chilling effect of these suits.
Since cases sometimes settle “on the courthouse steps” (not that I expect this one to settle), you won’t definitely know until and unless trial actually starts. The odds go way up if the appeal is denied. I don’t know how fast the D.C. Appeals court will be, or how fast the trial judge will push it along if the appeal’s denied.
Also, after discovery, there’s still summary judgment, another chance for the defense to win without trial. But the case could drag on for ages before we get there…depending in part on Mann’s discovery demands, motions to amend his complaint, etc.
Steyn’s shown himself wise enough to acquire counsel again. So, no, I don’t think he’s foolish enough to leave his life savings on the table for the sake of courtroom spectacle…not if the appeal’s granted and he can escape with a motion to reconsider, and continue the debate out in the public square.
Trial courts don’t set precedent in the technical sense…I mean by that, nothing the current trial judge does is binding on any other trial in the D.C. Superior Court…a different judge or even the same judge can interpret the law differently in a different case, until and unless an appellate court hands down a real precedent. So this case could be a “one-off.”
(But if you meant “precedent” in the nontechnical sense of “this is a sign of how things are going to be done”…then maybe. I think we’d need more examples afterwards to show it.)
No. Cases like this ought to be dismissed on the weakness of the complaint as drafted, without the need for findings of fact. So that is not the “only” alternative.
Joseph W. (Comment #129147)
“Cases like this ought to be dismissed on the weakness of the complaint as drafted, without the need for findings of fact.”
If the complaint fails to allege enough facts to make a legally viable case, then it seems to me that’s a matter of law. It would justify dismissal with or without SLAPP.
If it does allege enough facts, then I don’t see how you can dismiss without finding some of those facts are not credible.
@ SteveF (Comment #129135)
“….they are corroding the fabric of the court system itself.”
CO2 obsession is triggering the corrosion of legal fabric, political fabric, academic fabric, etc. Perhaps there is a previously unknown characteristic of carbonic acid.
Hunter,
I don’t think the political disagreement is much about CO2. It is more about the balance between public control and individual liberties/freedoms. It is the norms of Denmark versus the norms of Texas. It is a disagreement about what the future should look like, and more so, who will control what that future will look like.
Eli
Once again, I have no idea what you are on about — and especially, don’t see how it has anything to do to ‘support’ what appeared to be your previous attempt at ‘snarky mystery accusation by obscurity’.
Once again: no idea what you think I have been going on about. “A” law? I’ve been saying there ought to be a law that does what?
And beyond that continued level of obscurity involving not beginning to say what you think I have been claiming– even if I have been saying there ought to be some sort of law that says something (and I’m not entirely sure I have said any such thing): , it’s fine for people to say “their ought to be a law” even if “there ain’t” such a law. That’s why we have a legislative process: To create laws that people think are called for.
And more to your previous claim that
Just “huh”? How in the world do you conclude that someone who thinks some (unspecified by you) law ought to be a certain (unspecified by you) way would complain if it is applied in a way they think it ought to be applied? Please elaborate– and try to be sufficiently specific so that someone could begin to understand what you are even accusing someone (whoever it really is) of.
@Pouncer (Comment #129139) & Nick Stokes (Comment #129140)
You are missing the point. The purpose of an Anti-Slapp statute is to require the Plaintiff to prove a prima facie case early in the proceeding. Once the Defendant proves a prima facie case that “that the claim at issue arises from an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest . . .”, the Plaintiff must “demonstrat[e] that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits”. DC Code, § 16-5502(b)
The only way to demonstrate “that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits”, is by presenting evidence. The DC trial court did not examine any evidence, but instead assumed that Mann’s allegations were true. That is the error made by the trial court.
For the lawyers. In the ruling dismissing the first anti-SLAPP appeal by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals the first order was, sua sponte, that the amicus curiae response by the ACLU be filed as its response. I believe this means that the amicus curiae was to be taken in total as the response of the court regarding the appeal. Even though the appeal was ruled moot due to the amended complaint.
The amicus curiae by the ACLU clearly supports that the the Anti-SLAPP law is appealable interlocutory.
“This Court should hold that the trial court’s order denying defendants anti-SLAPP motion is a collateral order subject to immediate appeal because it presents questions of law, conclusively decided, that are separate from the underlying merits of plaintiff’s claims and because the order is effectively unreviewable after judgement.”
My question: doesn’t entering this amicus curiae as the Courts response not effectively address the issue of interlocutory appeal for an anti-SLAPP ruling in the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?
My question: doesn’t entering this amicus curiae as the Courts response not effectively address the issue of interlocutory appeal for an anti-SLAPP ruling in the District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia?
I think the Court was simply guilty of an ambiguous pronoun reference. I believe it meant that the amicus curiae response by the ACLU be filed as [the ACLU’s] response. I think the court is more or less saying it accepts the ACLU’s amicus curiae brief.
Nick Stokes (Comment #129148): If the complaint fails to allege enough facts to make a legally viable case, then it seems to me that’s a matter of law. It would justify dismissal with or without SLAPP.
That seems to me to be the problem with the trial court’s interpretation of the anti-SLAPP statute: it adds nothing to already-existing procedure for dismissal as a matter of law. Courts generally assume that legislatures act for a reason. There would be no reason for the DC Council to pass a statute which does nothing to alter the current law.
Thanks MJW. It was something that did not make sense to me, and my interpretation seemed to lead to a rather unusual occurance.
Lucia, have you not been going on that the appeal of the anti-Slapp turndown should be immediately appealable?
MJW (Comment #129156)
“it adds nothing to already-existing procedure for dismissal as a matter of law. Courts generally assume that legislatures act for a reason. There would be no reason for the DC Council to pass a statute which does nothing to alter the current law.”
Yes, but it doesn’t answer the query, what further are they supposed to do? If they evaluate the facts alleged, that requires a review of the evidence. There’s a well established process for doing that – discovery, testimony etc. The Council seems to be saying that the judges should find some sort of shortcut, but don’t say what it is.
Then there is the problem, suppose they do? The jury trial has a judge who has already made findings about the evidence, based on a short-cut process. He then presides over the long form trial, advising a jury? Even with another judge, the trial proceeds with an existing judicial finding about the facts.
Generally, as I understand legal process, you can argue and appeal all you like about issues of law, but there is supposed to be only one determination of fact.
Me: That seems to me to be the problem with the trial court’s interpretation of the anti-SLAPP statute: it adds nothing to already-existing procedure for dismissal as a matter of law.
That’s probably an overstatement. No matter what’s required for cases to survive anti-SLAPP dismissal, the anti-SLAPP statute does have some additional features, such as dismissal with prejudice of cases that are dismissed. Still, I can’t see how dismissal with prejudice of legally insufficient pleadings goes very far in protecting free speech.
(This comment was posted before I saw Nick Stokes last comment. I’ll reply to it separately.)
Is it possible that anti-SLAPP statute enables nothing that was not enabled under prior law and is maybe a distraction? Surely this would not be the first statute superimposed on an already adequate body of law which was capable of supporting the resolution of problems again addressed .
Nick Stokes (Comment #129159)
You state: “If they evaluate the facts alleged, that requires a review of the evidence. There’s a well established process for doing that – discovery, testimony etc.”
A preliminary review of the evidence is the entire purpose of Anti-Slapp. The DC Anti-Slapp statute specifically requires the Plaintiff to “demonstrat[e] that the claim is likely to succeed on the merits”. As I stated in a previous discussion on this subject, demonstrating a “likelihood of success on the merits” is a well understood and applied part of a four part test used by a trial court when considering whether or not to grant a temporary injunction. i.e., All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Memorial Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (1989). The All Care Nursing court in that case also held:
All Care Nursing, at 1538-9
At such an evidentiary hearing, the proponent of the preliminary injunction must prove, with testimony, affidavits, documents, or other admissible evidence, that his case has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Here, the record does not disclose that such a hearing occurred, and to the contrary, the trial court denied the Anti-Slapp motion by expressly assuming, without evidence, that Mann’s allegations were true.
Eli
Not that I can recall– and I think I have not done so. I’m fairly certain I’ve made no statements about what the law is on this point– as I don’t know. It’s possibly I might have expressed an opinion about what might make sense in a normative sense. (As I did in this post.)
Since you claim I have been going on about this for “for months”, please do your own research and find the quotes you read that make you think I have been “been going on [about this] for months”. As no one else can possible guess which statements of mine give you this impression, no one else can do this for you. I certainly cannot do it.
And remember: for these to “count” they need to be claims that anti-slapp turndowns should be immediately appealable– not something else. So, please don’t waste our time dredging up quotes that amount to “changing the subject” rather than supporting your claim. After you have done this perhaps we can have some notion what you think I actually claimed– and I can clarify what it might have meant.
Will J. Richardson (Comment #129164)
“applied part of a four part test used by a trial court”
I don’t think that is a good analogy. Other parts of the test, eg “(2)that irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues;” clearly required a determination of fact. And they found for the defense because “there was no activity in regards to Palm Beach Gardens to be enjoined”. There’s nothing analogous here.
But basically, I don’t see how you can have a fair trial with two consecutive evidentiary hearings, with two different finders of fact. Especially as one side has to win twice, one only once. And first with no access to discovery etc.
Nick,
You seem to be losing sight of what the anti-SLAPP laws are supposed to be doing; they are supposed to stop exactly this kind of case from proceeding. The issue here is the use of a lawsuit to financially punish critics… an avenue only available to the wealthy and/or the influential. In this particular case, the dismissal motion should have been determined on a couple of issues: 1) Mann is clearly a public figure for this subject area, and 2) therefore, to prevail at trial Mann would have to show that Steyn et al really did not believe what they have many times said plainly they do believe. Absent the production of evidence that shows Steyn et al ‘really truly in their deepest heart of hearts believe’ differently than everything they have said and written indicates, the case should have been thrown out immediately.
.
If the case can only proceed via discovery, testimony, etc (essentially a trial), as you seem to suggest, then there is no point in having any anti-SLAPP laws in the first place.
.
I can say I think Al Gore is a bloated, selfish windbag who has never done anything productive in his life, and who would not recognize science if it jumped up and bit him on the butt…. because, well, that is what I really think about Al Gore, and he is a public figure. Mike Mann is a public figure when it comes to climate science.
Nick Stokes (Comment #129166)
It is not that hard. The point is that “likelihood of success on the merits” is a well understood test and legal term of art with a well defined meaning. The adoption of that test in the Anti-Slapp statute means that the test should be given the same meaning and require the same legal inquiry. That is the way Anti-Slapp statutes are applied in other jurisdictions, i.e., ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 625, 632 (2001) where that court held:
The DC trial court simply misconstrued DC’s Anti-Slapp statute here when it did not require Mann to present a prima facie evidentiary case on each element of his defamation claim, including the falsity of Styne’s allegedly factual and defamatory statements. That is the only way that Mann can “demonstrat[e] that the claim is likely to succeed on the meritsâ€. DC Code, § 16-5502(b).
Will J. Richardson (Comment #129169)
Your Kansas cite talks only of prima facie evidence. And in Sec C they say explicitly (my emphasis):
“To show a probability of prevailing for purposes of section 425.16, a plaintiff must “`”make a prima facie showing of facts which would, if proved at trial, support a judgment in plaintiffs favor.”‘” (Kyle v. Cannon, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th 901, 907, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 303.) This standard is “similar to the standard used in determining motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, or summary judgment,” in that the court cannot weigh the evidence. (Ibid.; accord, Wilcox v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 809, 827, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 446.)”
Nick Stokes (Comment #129170)
So what. When Mann’s complaint is challenged by an Anti-Slapp motion, Mann still has to present his evidence and that evidence must support a factual finding that Mann’s claim is likely to succeed on the merits. That is where the DC trial court erred. The DC trial court here simply assumed the facts that Mann alleged in his complaint were true, and because those facts were assumed to be true, the court concluded that Mann had proved a likelihood of success on the merits. The procedure and interpretation adopted by the DC trial court guts the Anti-Slapp statute.
Will J. Richardson (Comment #129171)
“That is where the DC trial court erred. The DC trial court here simply assumed the facts that Mann alleged in his complaint were true…”
There’s really only two choices. You can assume the facts as alleged, or you can weigh the evidence. The Cal (not Kansas, my mistake) Court of Appeal says they can’t weigh the evidence.
Nick Stokes (Comment #129172)
You are still missing the point. Mann has to present competent admissible evidence to the court at the hearing on the Anti-Slapp motion of each element required to make out a prima facie valid claim of defamation. That evidence must “demonstrat[e] that the claim is likely to succeed on the meritsâ€. DC Code, § 16-5502(b). The prohibition against weighing the evidence at this stage of the proceeding simply means that the trial court does not resolve disputed issues of material fact on the Anti-Slapp motion. Mann still has to present evidence to defeat the Anti-Slapp motion.
For those, like Nick Stokes, who are having trouble grasping how Anti-Slapp is supposed to work, let me offer Ken White’s (PopeHat) lucid description here:
Why, Yes, I AM Into SLAPPing.
He explains it much better than I can.
Nick Stokes (Comment #129159): Yes, but it doesn’t answer the query, what further are they supposed to do? If they evaluate the facts alleged, that requires a review of the evidence. There’s a well established process for doing that – discovery, testimony etc. The Council seems to be saying that the judges should find some sort of shortcut, but don’t say what it is.
Will J. Richardson and SteveF have already answered in more detail, so I’ll just say I actually think the DC Council does say what the process is: the complaint must allege facts which, if proved, would likely result in a win for the plaintiff. Mann’s complaint alleges no facts which if proved would establish actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. In her ruling, the judge admits that. It may seem unfair that the plaintiff has to prove actual malice without discovery. That’s why the statute allows for targeted discovery in some circumstances. The provision for targeted discovery seems to me to refute the trial court’s interpretation of the anti-SLAPP law, since under that interpretation, the anti-SLAPP motion should be dismissed if the complaint is legally sufficient, and if facts supporting the claims might be established by discovery.
Nick Stokes: There’s really only two choices. You can assume the facts as alleged, or you can weigh the evidence.
But even if you assume every single fact in Mann’s complaint, there’s nothing that comes close to proving by clear and convincing evidence that the defendants acted with actual malice. (A claim in the complaint that the defendants acted “with reckless disregard” is not a fact the court can assume to be true.)
Will J. Richardson (Comment #129174)
“For those, like Nick Stokes, who are having trouble grasping how Anti-Slapp is supposed to work, let me offer Ken White’s (PopeHat) lucid description here:”
Popehat uses the same phrases. No evidentiary hearing, no weighing of evidence:
“The burden now shifts to you, the person suing me. You are now obligated to present admissible evidence showing a probability of prevailing. The evidence must not only show what I did, but be sufficient to defeat any First Amendment or statutory privileges I have. This doesn’t require the court to weigh evidence — the plaintiff need only offer admissible evidence which, if accepted, would be sufficient to prevail.”
“Which, if accepted…” the same words the judge used. And the standard for ordinary dismissal. Are you arguing that some of Mann’s evidence was inadmissible? Or that it would not overcome first amendment privileges?
It’s true the first judge said that the actual malice aspect might need help from discovery. The second judge didn’t express such reservations. MJW says the first judge should have instituted targeted discovery, but it’s not clear that she can. Popehat says that the SLAPP motion stalls all discovery. He sees that as merit #1. The other is that the plaintiff is on the hook for costs if loses.
MJW says the first judge should have instituted targeted discovery, but it’s not clear that she can.
Nick,
It seems to me that your reasoning would ensure no SLAPP suit would ever be dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, because no plaintiff would ever bring a suit which did not allege ‘actual malace’. Is that what you are suggesting?
.
The issue is that the plaintiff bears the burden of producing preliminary evidence of actual malice. The trial judges have accepted Mann’s allegation of actual malice without producing any evidence which shows that. IOW, the trial judges have effectively gutted the statute, and declared DC courts a good forum for SLAPP suits…. so long as your politics are aligned with those of the judges.
SteveF (Comment #129179)
“It seems to me that your reasoning would ensure no SLAPP suit would ever be dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, because no plaintiff would ever bring a suit which did not allege ‘actual malace’. Is that what you are suggesting?”
It’s possible that this anti-SLAPP law won’t have the intended effect. I’m just wondering how you can go beyond “evidence, which if accepted…” (the normal dismissal criterion) without weighing the evidence. The judges seem to be criticised here for using that criterion. WJR wants an evidentiary hearing, but if the Court can’t weigh the evidence, what’s the point?
Nick Stokes (Comment #129180)
Nick sez: “WJR wants an evidentiary hearing, but if the Court can’t weigh the evidence, what’s the point?”
As I have said several times before, Mann must produce, show, demonstrate, proffer, exhibit, share, or by some other means present to the court, admissible evidence supporting each element of the cause of action, defamation. In other words, Mann must prove that his cause of action is based on admissible evidence which actually exists in the real world and not just theoretically in a model, or Mann’s amygdala. The weight of that evidence has nothing to do with it. It is a burden of production of evidence, not burden of proof at this stage of the proceeding. I swear, sometimes I think you are trolling us when you are obtuse like this.
Nick Stokes,
I think the distinction might be “claim” vs. “evidence”.
Suppose there is some tort where one of the elements in my claim against you requires that you be a woman.
Now, suppose I claim or allege you are a woman but tell the judge that to prove my claim, I need discovery. The judge then looks at my filing sees that I at least claimed or alleged you are a woman, and under the assumption that if my claim is true I could possibly win, he lets the go forward. Note that beyond my claim or allegation I haven’t provided one snippet of evidence that my claim about your womanhood is true. Maybe I totally made it up.
Now suppose the judge requires me to provide at least one iota of evidence other than my bald claim that you are a woman and says that evidence has to come before he will permit discovery. Now, I am required to show some basis to even suspect you are a woman. Maybe it will be your alienated ex-girlfriend who has an axe to grind who will testify she’s seen you nude and based on visual inspection, she concludes you are a woman, or it will be some sort of ambiguous secret photos that might even be photoshopped but in not so totally obvious way– or something. But it has to be something.
Now: what does “weighing the evidence” mean? Generally it means looking at it to see if it is convincing and also balancing it against other evidence (like possibly your current girlfriend who says “believe me. He’s a man. A really man. Stud-muffin extraordinaire!”).
But here, maybe once the judge gets a signed affidavit from your (alieanated axe-to-grind) ex-girlfriend he now says “some evidence exists”– and without balancing the ex-girlfriend vs. new girlfriend (or even DNA evidence you could bring to prove your “y” chromosome exists), he now lets the case go through. So: he hasn’t “weighed” anything. He has just noted that there is something beyond mere bald assertion by the plaintiff.
So, I, the plaintiff now get discovery (where presumably, I think I will find some non – privileged medical record that shows your DNA does not include the “y” chromosome, or some verbal admission that you are really a woman or what not. Or maybe I’m just bringing a nuisance suit and know perfectly well I’m not going to find any evidence because I just make up a wild claim that you are a woman. The latter is why “SLAPP” exists in some contexts.)
Nick, as Ms. Liljegren has stated in English, there is a difference between allegata and probata.
Nick Stokes: “Are you arguing that some of Mann’s evidence was inadmissible?”
Though I don’t think that was what was being argued, it brings up an interesting point. The reports supposedly clearing Mann, which are essentially all he offers to to support his claim that the defendants acted with actual malice, are likely inadmissible hearsay under DC case law.
Re MJW 129184: “The reports supposedly clearing Mann … are likely inadmissible hearsay under DC case law.”
That seems odd. Suppose Falwell, in his original complaint, had introduced reports both scientific and republished in popular media that, in general, claimed that accusations of incest caused (“high levels of certainty, 97% of experts agreeing) various degrees of “emotional distress”. Flynt, Falwell would claim, either knew or should have known that the Campari parody would result in such distress, and therefore Flynt had acted to “intentionally inflict” just such an injury.
All hypothetical, of course. But would Falwell, then, be barred from introducing such psychological research because it would be “hearsay”?
Any Minute Eli will show up to claim that Lucia is arguing that Nick is a woman and that she claims to have the pictures to prove it.
Steven,
Eli would never say it that clearly. It does seem that he meant to suggest I was the one who was on about something. I’m still not entirely sure what he seemed to be suggesting I thought and had been “on about” for “months”.
Pouncer, I’m not sure your hypothetical adds much, since I find it impossible to separate the conclusions of the imagined popular magazine articles from the common knowledge that accusations of incest cause emotional distress. Therefore, I’ll address instead the actual situation. There’s sometimes a fine line between evidence offered for the truth of the matter, and evidence offered for other purposes. The claim in the case of the supposedly exonerating reports might be that they aren’t offered to prove Mann was exonerated, but instead to prove that the defendants should have been aware that there were reports which exonerated Mann. I don’t think that flies. Unless the reports were credible exonerations, their existence is immaterial. The reports only matter if they’re true; and because of that, and because they don’t seem to fall under any DC hearsay exception, I think they’re inadmissible.
Lucia,
“Eli would never say it that clearly. ”
.
I nearly snarfed my coffee…..
Will J. Richardson (Comment #129181)
> I swear, sometimes I think you [Nick Stokes] are trolling us when you are obtuse like this.
Given the topic at hand, I will practice writing with care… in my opinion, based on Nick’s prior conduct, your sometimes-assessment might possibly contain elements of correctitudeness.
When Nick is drilling down into technical details, he can add a great deal to the conversation. But on certain matters where a non-obtuse discussion of climate-scientist bungling could foster doubts about the field’s consensus beliefs, not so much.
“I nearly snarfed my coffee…..”
It was the perfect straight line and I knew she would smack it out of the park
On the subject of the admissibility or otherwise of the reports, I assume that the board is generally aware of:
1. Mann’s discovery request (AFAIK the only one so far), was a request for admissions, trying to get Steyn to agree to admit the documents [I don’t know if this request PDF is available online).
2. Steyn responded.
http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6196.pdf
Copner, I think Steyn’s response is very good, and seems to have been written while he was still pro se. I especially like the way he made Mann’s high-powered legal team look like turkeys by pointing out they were using the wrong rules of evidence.
Copner:
Mann’s strategy in the admissions is a bit of a non sequitur — ‘many other people all around the world have accused me of misbehavior and lousy science and I have beat the the wrap every time, therefore any criticism of me is defamatory.’
He continues to act as if he assumes that any criticism implies malice by definition because of the mantle of acceptance from the AGW establishment he wears.
Steyn argues in his reply as to why he does not buy the applicability or evidentiary worth of these “exonerations” and in so doing he is demonstrating that dismissal of these various findings was not reckless disregard but that he has substantive reasons for not accepting what Mann says they prove.
In other words, as a matter of record, Mann just lost the argument on malice and reckless disregard with his pompous demand to bow before the exoneration hit list. If his case largely depends on a claim that the defendant’s dared to contradict the Exonerations, therefore the plaintiff wins, then it’s over for Mann.
Given that the Anti-Slapp claim may be revisited in it’s entirety, and a summary judgment motion is coming if it is not, Mann just lost some ground.
I also think the the Exoneration Scoreboard approach carries an implicit risk: why would a good scientist have been formally investigated so many times?
George Tobin, I wouldn’t then be surprised if Mann later cited Climate Audit articles to prove that it wasn’t really him that was being investigated and exonerated.
(Enjoyed your first sentence particularly, btw)
Personally, I’d like to see Steyn go for a triple pronged defense:
1. My comments about Mann are true, because……….
2. I really believed my comments about Mann are true – and did not believe the investigations – and had good reasons not to believe them, including………
3. In the alternative to #2, I really believed my comments about Mann are true – and did not believe the investigations – because even if I’d have to be batshit crazy to not believe the investigations, that’s what I must be…. here is an independent expert who will testify that climate skeptics like me are indeed scientifically provable to batshit crazy… at which point he calls Lewandowsky.
#3 is unnecessary, except for extra shit + giggles
On a more serious point, can anybody find a PDF of Mann’s Request for Admissions?
In regard to the discussion of whether the reports can be admitted to show that the defendants were on notice that investigations had (supposedly) cleared Mann of wrongdoing, that’s not the purpose for which Mann wants them admitted. The Request for Admissions says:
There’s no way the report can be used as evidence for the truth of the matters asserted unless it falls within one of DC’s hearsay exceptions, and I don’t think it does.
OT – It looks like April 2014 UAH came in at .190.
If anyone thinks that Mark Steyn was operating for a moment without competent legal advice, I have some land in South Florida …..
Lucia
“lucia (Comment #129182)
“Nick Stokes,
I think the distinction might be “claim†vs. “evidence—
Yes, indeed. My point is that, under the (justified) restriction whereby courts can’t, when considering motion for dismissal, weigh the evidence, all you have is claims. And I think complaints here about the judges and anti-SLAPP are really about their “assuming the alleged facts are true”, when they have no alternative.
I’m being told that the distinction is that anti-SLAPP requires that they show, produce, etc the evidence. That seems to be what WJR wants with evidentiary hearings. But these are prfessional law firms. If they tell the judge they have evidence covering an element of the case, they will have something. Just checking that they do is not achieving much. What you’d like to establish is that it’s good evidence, but that can’t be weighed.
I’ll tell a story, which is not intended to resemble the conduct of any participants in this case. 1971, Canberra, student demo’s and a law’n order Federal Government, facing difficult re-election. They passed new laws turning various demo-related infractions, which had been clearly state matters, into Federal offences. In the process they codified in modern terms what had been largely common law.
So a few days after getting Queen’s assent to the law, a demo happened and they rolled out their big guns. One was an update to the Riot Act, whereby a cop could read a proclamation giving a crowd fifteen minutes to skedaddle or be arrested. They did, few skedaddled, and about 100 were arrested.
The process in our magistrates courts (this is ACT, like DC) is that Crown presents its case, testimony and all, and the defence responds. But before responding, they can move dismissal saying that the Crown evidence does not cover all elements of the offence. This is rare, but now we have new law.
In an early case, a defendant (they were all tried separately) argued that an element of the offence was that they had to show that he was there when the proclamation was read. He was clearly right and succeeded.
Now the Crown likely didn’t know where people were at that time. There were just mass arrests. But a single sergeant from NSW who was present at the time gave evidence in each later case that he remembered seeing the defendant present at the time, and gave details.
After a while this became very implausible, and the details did not match later evidence. But it didn’t matter that no-one believed him. The court could not weigh his evidence at dismissal stage and the Crown got through. The defendants usually gave evidence that they were there (in a different location). The Feds won the argument, but got very few penalties applied.
Now I hasten to disown any suggestion that something like this could happen in a US civil proceeding. My point is just that if you really do want to test the quality of evidence at the anti-SLAPP stage, as I think some here think the judges should have done, it is not a substitute to just fuss about whether they have the presentation right.
Nick Stokes (Comment #129202)
Nick said: “I’m being told that the distinction is that anti-SLAPP requires that they show, produce, etc the evidence. That seems to be what WJR wants with evidentiary hearings.”
It is not what I am saying, it is what the law requires.
Nick said: “But these are prfessional (sic) law firms. If they tell the judge they have evidence covering an element of the case, they will have something.”
That is so not true. Plaintiffs lose cases on summary judgment and by directed verdicts all the time because those “pr[o]fessional law firms” cannot prove the allegations they made in their complaints. Exempli gratia, you said, “In an early case, a defendant . . . argued that an element of the offence was that they had to show that he was there when the proclamation was read. He was clearly right and succeeded.” That is called a motion for directed verdict in civil court (judgment as a matter of law in Federal Court), and a judgement of acquittal in criminal court.
Nick
I’m not going to get into a debate about precisely what the ANTI-SLAP requires with respect to the degree of “weighing” vs. ‘not weighing’. That said: noting that something is a “claim” vs. “evidence” is not the same as actually “weighing” evidence. But beyond that: what ANTI-SLAP requires– well, presumably that depends on the details of what the local law requires. These are all local and I’m not going to delve into DC requirements.
But if you can’t see that noting whether something is evidence is not the same as weighing whether it’s credible– well then there is really no point in discussing your complaint that you thing others are saying it must be “weighed”. Because there is something in between not noticing that there is no evidence at all and actually weighing the evidence. If you can’t see this– well, fine. But that’s an issue with you being unable to understand distinctions, not with what other people are saying needs to be done.
This is a nonesense claim. Just because something is a professional law firm doesn’t mean they will have “something”. Litigators do what they can do for their clients. If that means puffery, they’ll do puffery– up to whatever point they can get away with without getting disbarred or fined or something. And that’s generally quite a bit.
I’m not sure what the point of your story is supposed to be. If it’s that Mann’s attorney’s could bring in “bad or poor” ‘evidence’ and so get past ANTI-SLAP– maybe. But there is a certain point where that would be counter-productive because things they claim now might later affect the trial. Also: they certainly can’t go to the point of perjury without jamming themselves up.
Right now I suspect they couldn’t find anything to suggest Steyn, Simberg, NRO and CEI don’t believe what they wrote. And your story about something that happened during a demonstration doesn’t change that. Mann’s lawyers can’t find anything those prolific writers wrote, and they can’t find a single person who will testify (at risk of perjury) to suggest these people don’t believe what they wrote.
I suggest that you are mistaking people suggesting that judges should test the “quality of evidence” to suggest ‘X’ is a true fact with people suggesting that judges should notice absolutely no evidence was presented” to suggest “X” is a true fact. In truth, in the Mann case, Mann’s side didn’t present even one iota of evidence the defendants don’t believe what they wrote. Not one. This isn’t a matter of Mann’s side presenting evidence that one might suggest was not credible. On that point, as far as I can see, there is a total absence of any evidence at all.
How the DC ANTI-SLAPP law says the judge should deal with I don’t know. But suggesting the judge should not there is zero evidence on this issue is not the same as asking him to “weigh” the evidence that was provided, or judge whether it’s credible, or compare it to anything else. It’s just saying the judge should note there is zero evidence provided on that point.
Nick: Stokes: But these are professional law firms. If they tell the judge they have evidence covering an element of the case, they will have something. Just checking that they do is not achieving much.
Are these the same professional law firms that relied on the wrong rules of evidence in the Request for Admissions from Steyn?
“what ANTI-SLAP requires– well, presumably that depends on the details of what the local law requires.”
And, of course, according to Lucia, the judges in this case have not a clue.
Eli Rabett (Comment #129207)
Mr. Halpern, you’ve read the statute, and you’ve read what Ken White at Popehat has written about how Anti-Slapp statutes work, because you comment there from time to time. You know the DC trial judge got it wrong.
Nick Stokes, consider the following Supreme Court quotation on the standard for a directed verdict or summary judgement:
So the question is whether Mann has provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find with convincing clarity that the defendants didn’t believe what they were saying was true.
MJW (Comment #129209)
“Nick Stokes, consider the following Supreme Court quotation on the standard for a directed verdict or summary judgement:”
Talk seems to have shifted to summary judgment. My understanding is that to obtain summary judgment you have to present your own case and show basically that it’s good and the evidence against is so weak that trial is unnecessary. Whereas in moving for dismissal, the defence only has to show the evidence cited against them could not, if believed, succeed in law. And I don’t think that in this case, anyone has moved for summary judgment (yet).
WJR, the example I cited was certainly described as a motion for dismissal, since the Crown had presented no evidence to place the defendant there at the time of proclamation, which was a required element, and the defence had provided no evidence at that stage. I don’t think it could be described as summary judgment, because the defendant did not dispute that he was there.
Nick Stokes, the case I quoted from, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., was decided by summary judgement following discovery but before a jury heard any evidence. Summary judgement can also be granted prior to discovery. A directed verdict occurs after a jury has heard the evidence. The court says: “The primary difference between the two motions is procedural; summary judgment motions are usually made before trial and decided on documentary evidence, while directed verdict motions are made at trial and decided on the evidence that has been admitted.”
> Copner, I think Steyn’s response is very good, and seems to have been written while he was still pro se. I especially like the way he made Mann’s high-powered legal team look like turkeys by pointing out they were using the wrong rules of evidence.
I think there could be a reason they used the wrong rules of evidence.
If they had used he right rules, it would be obvious, even to a pro se litigant, that they were inadmissible.
But if they used the wrong rules, it wouldn’t be so obvious (see previous discussions on this board for examples)…. And a pro se litigant might not check which rules applied.
Eli
Huh? I have no idea what you base your notions about what I think on. Fevered imaginings I presume.
April UAH is 0.19.
DeWitt–
Thanks. I saw that late yesterday. I need to get it up!
Hmmm – 0.19 sounds promising 🙂
Nick Stokes (Comment #129210)
You said:
Exactly Mr. Stokes, the Crown failed to produce evidence from which the jury could determine that the protester heard the proclamation. I understand that your example occurred at trial, but the purpose of Anti-Slapp statutes is to prevent plaintiffs from punishing defendants by forcing the defendants to incur the expense of discovery and trial. For that reason, Anti-Slapp requires the plaintiff to produce evidence supporting each and every allegation material to the elements of the cause of action before the defendant may be forced to incur the expense of discovery and trial.
Eli. has been to Tulare county.
my guess is he was bitten by a tick
Mosher–
Quite likely. That said: in this case, I can at least tell who he thinks has made a claim (me) and what is claimed. He happens to be wrong.
I realize that some commenters have criticized some of the judges as clueless. But as far as I recall, I haven’t suggested any of the judges are clueless. I’m willing to say some thing that are general– or that apply widely. For example: Sullivan’s impact on defamation in the US. But I don’t know enough about specific statutes or precedents in the district of columbia to make conclusions about whether the judges are “clueless” in their application of laws that are local to DC. I don’t live in DC not going to spend a lot of time trying to bone up on application of law, legal procedures &etc. in DC. And I haven’t pretended to do so!
Why Eli would state “according to Lucia X” and throw out random seeming ‘X’s that bear no realation to anything I’ve claimed… I don’t know. But I’ve long observed his tendency to do this both with me and with others. It’s odd.
Odder still is his more cryptic “according to ‘some’ , ‘something’ ” type statements that neither identify who “some” might be, nor what the “something” might be. But they generally seemed to be worded as if he is finding fault in whoever these “some” may be and decreeing that he- Eli– is somehow in the ‘right’ on whatever the mysterious unidentifiable ‘something’ might be. Of course, those snarks are impossible to ‘rebutt’ because no one can figure out what the heck they are supposed to be claiming!
My impression has always been Eli gotten in a bad habit of thinking he can prove his views “right” in this way. Possibly, he takes failure to “rebutt” to as proof that whatever idea he had in his head (which he didn’t manage to communicate) was actually unrebuttable. But really.. who knows whether it could be rebutted by someone who knew what the claim was!
Of course, the habit is odd and rather stupid. Possibly as you suggest it is the result of a tick bite.
According to some…
.
Eli is an expert on libel and slander laws. That is why he only speaks in the pseudonymous third person.
.
Some legal beagle told him so.
Well some (certainly not myself), think his style of writing is quaint and quite interesting.
RickA,
“some (certainly not myself), think his style of writing is quaint and quite interesting.”
.
Maybe some of his students… if they are desperate for a grade. I personally find his third person schtick tedious and mindless, though obviously more subtle and graceful than his technical analyses are. Perhaps in his last life he was the Queen of England and got a lot of practice speaking in the third person. Perhaps not.
Re: SteveF (May 7 18:39),
I thought kings and queens spoke in the first person plural, as in:”We are not amused.”
DeWitt,
I thought there was the occasional “The queen is not amused” as well. I read once that the third person is used to ensure there is no debate about what someone thinks…. since the (third) person any statement refers to is, apparently, not actually present to debate. as in “Eli sees no ideal gas law that doesn’t support Doug Cotton’s view.”. With Eli not around, its difficult to argue with him about lapse rates.
.
Mostly it is just stupid.
RE: “Eli sees no ideal gas law that doesn’t support Doug Cotton’s view.â€
. . . here it comes . . .
So, I met Eli at AGU.
I was sitting by our poster and he was talking to Zeke.
My companion pointed him out.
I said ” well, If I talk to him, I must apologize. But Im not sure I want to talk to him. But if I do, I must apologize”
As he walked by I decided it was time. So I apologized for being a prick, jerk, saying mean things.
In person Josh is a very cheerful man. He has a twinkle in his eye
and he graciously stated that no apology was necessary because
“its just the internet” More was said, but that’s enough for
you folks to get the general idea.
in other terms, Eli is not Josh. I met Josh.
hehe, I will still have fun with Eli, cause its just the internet.
Steve Mosher,
“in other terms, Eli is not Josh. I met Josh.”
.
Fair enough, maybe it would be better for Josh to show up…. and leave Eli at home.
Regarding royal and other peculiar language, I seem to recall when one of the Charles/Diana sons was little, some paparazzi caught him tinkling on the grass. The photo caption read “The Royal Wee”.
Although Eli writes in the third person, for some reason his comments remind me of that photo and caption.
(It’s just the internet.)
Comment from Doc Spencer’s blog
“TINSTAAFL says:
May 7, 2014 at 9:49 AM
Eli Pigeon would be a better pseudonym. It flies in, sh!ts on your head and flies away again.”
Re: Steven Mosher (Comment #129229)
“So, I met Eli at AGU.
… Eli is not Josh. I met Josh.”
Interesting. The things you learn on the internet… 😉
Mosher–
That Josh is not Eli does not surprise me. On none climate things — like when I asked a question for my sister the librarian– he is very helpful. I suspect neutral favors for people puts him in “Josh” mode and he decides to do a mitzvah.
Does Eli Rabett dislike anyone in particular, of course not
Now, isn’t this precious. We should all break out in Kumbaya and have a gluten-free cookie with warm, cruelty-free soy milk. Vegan carrot cake is optional.
It’s “Just the Internet” sounds like a good title for a serial comedy whereby semi-antagonists like Eli or Nick drop by blogs and make comments with a semi-countervailing point of view and lo and behold the bloggers at the site rise up with retorts that provides, I think, the attention sought by the semi-antagonists. These occurrences are regular and somewhat predictable thus making a good fit with a serial comedy show that has an ongoing theme. If I were producing the show I would want to severely reduce the length of the discussions and have the actors make their points and with good humor whenever possible and then back away to allow the audience to determine whether any cogent points were made or rather that their attention was rewarded with some nicely delivered quips. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view, my inclinations matter little as it is after all “Just the Internet”.
a serial comedy, yes, but the title can be improved.
‘josh and mosh’ I suppose
Carrot cake is NOT optional
Eli
If I baked carrot cake, I would use butter. It would not be vegan.
Now look, I’m not holding anybody’s hand to sing ‘We Are the World We Are the Children’ or anything like that, but I like carrot cake. And before anyone asks, no. I’ve never had sensitivity training, emotional, cultural, artistic, or otherwise.
Carrot cake is my favorite vegetable.
Mark Bofill,
Do you put cream cheese icing on that? If Eli tells me his birthday, I can make one and eat it in his honor. 🙂
Lucia,
YES!
Times were, we might have merely raised our glasses in a toast to Eli’s health. I like this custom better. I wonder if I could persuade my wife to bake one for that occasion as well! What say you, Eli?
Since we’ve made the distinction already, it doesn’t need to be Joshua’s actual birthday, does it?
…I’ll even wear bunnies ears to eat it!
[update: Ok. The euphoria of imagining the carrot cake is wearing off, and I’m regretting the bunny ears boast. I think I got a little swept away by the moment there.]
HaroldW (Comment #129244)
There is an old English proverb that says: You can’t have your carrot cake and eat it too, i.e. as a vegetable.
I always thought it was a tragic result of a terrible spelling mistake, carob cake being a poor-man’s chocolate substitute. A travesty, even.
Pouncer (Comment #129240)
May 9th, 2014 at 9:45 am
Since “it’s just the internet”, anyone want to take a crack at rhyming “moshpit”?
I explain Eli by watching my friend Will..
around minute 7 he explains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcuYuiElhlI
I guess speculating about a defamation case got boring.
An anagram of “moshpit” would be “sh*t mop” – a device for removing sh*t
Watts asks “Why is Dr. Mann playing with fire on Twitter? Is he just being an emotional child or does he want another lawsuit?”
Does he think he is immune?
Or that opponents won’t have the $ to sue?
Or is he just addicted to libel?
“But these are prfessional law firms. If they tell the judge they have evidence covering an element of the case, they will have something.”
Ah, the infamous climate science reverence of authority.
Vegan is a joke. Of course carrot cake must be made with butter and cream cheese frosting. Since my dessert radar is pinging, I’ll give you my favorite: Tollhouse cookies using milk choco chips. follow recipe on pack. Substitute rendered and chilled bacon fat for 1-stick butter. Double vanilla extract. Add 1-tablespoon cinnimon and 1-teaspoon allspice.
Howard, OK…you got me. You have now forced me to get up and bake cookies ! You are a mean mean person !
“Michael E Mann: Liar, Cheat, Falsifier and Fraudâ€
Mark Steyn ups the ante.
http://www.steynonline.com/6333/michael-e-mann-liar-cheat-falsifier-and-fraud
@Don B (Comment #129257)
I wonder if the Manniacs were hoping for some sort of quiet slinking away, with a quiet reimbursement of Mann’s legal fees?
Steyn is worth defending just for the great writing, lol.
Here are the current Alexa stats for Steynonline.com
Global Rank 49,289
Top countries:
Country Percent of Visitors Rank in Country
United States 72.7% 12,424
Australia 7.6% 8,385
Canada 6.8% 15,677
United Kingdom 4.9% 33,639
2014 has been good for Steyn’s website and hopefully his fund-raising. His site has consistently been in the top 100,000 globally. In 2013 his site only made a couple blips into the top 100,000 early in the year.
JohnM refers to the “The Royal Wee†form Charles’ children. Charles being, of course, the Royal Woo.
So are you guys embracing the Mark Steyn conspiracy theory now? Or just cheerleading it?
Ah Boris, how I’ve missed you.
Hi, Boris!
Hi, guys.
So, where is the conspiracy Boris? I like a good conspiracy. Hang on, let me get my tin foil hat on.
Ok. Ready. Shoot.
Hi, Boris. Are you still buying inot the Lewandowsky conspiracy theory scam? That is so yesterday.
From Don’s link:
“But, if you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you’ll be cut off like Briffa’s tree rings.”
Boris (Comment #129267)
May 14th, 2014 at 11:32 am
And you think that demonstrates a conspiracy huh.
You better get that checked. Dr. Lewandowsky generally doesn’t take walk ins, but he might make an exception, you never know.
Boris,
In plain terms, you can’t pick up a piece o’ crud like that to throw at somebody without getting it on your hands. Steyn didn’t suggest there was a conspiracy, you suggested he suggested it. You must think there’s reasonable grounds to suspect a conspiracy. That’s conspiratorial ideation you’re indulging in there. Definitely not healthy. You must be spending too much time with deniers like me.
😉
Oops, I put myself into moderation by using a naughty expression. Rephrasing:
Boris,
In plain terms, you can’t pick up a smelly piece of ickiness like that to throw at somebody without getting it on your hands. Steyn didn’t suggest there was a conspiracy, you suggested he suggested it. You must think there’s reasonable grounds to suspect a conspiracy. That’s conspiratorial ideation you’re indulging in there. Definitely not healthy. You must be spending too much time with duh-nayers like me. 😉
Re: Boris (May 14 11:32),
And this is different from the way science is, at least sometimes, practiced in academia how? Remember continental drift? When I was an undergraduate (back when dinosaurs still walked the Earth), a young scientist in the US who publicly supported continental drift wouldn’t have an academic career. Or so I was told by a geology grad student at the time.
DeWitt,
Think there was a conspiracy behind that? No, me either.
Boris,
You can only beat your opponent with that particular stick when he picks it up of his own accord. Otherwise, you’re the one who saw the conspiracy, which makes you the fruit loopy loony toons conspiracy theorist I guess, or whatever you were trying to imply it meant about Steyn.
Clearly Steyn is suggesting their is a conspiracy between Mann and unnamed “mullahs” to deny tenure and end the careers of young climate scientists who “cross” them.
Clearly? Did I misread? I didn’t see the word ‘conspiracy’ in the entire piece.
There are many possible mechanisms to explain what Steyn proposes. DeWitt gave you an example above.
The primary thing that’s clear here is that you’re looking to smear opponents by suggesting they indulge in conspiracy ideation. Well, that and the fact that you advocate cannibalism.
Isn’t this fun?
(Uhm, sorry for rhetorical questions Lucia. I’ll mind my ‘?’s more attentively)
Mark Steyn is proposing a coordinated campaign between Mann, “the mullahs” and, seemingly, every tenure review committee in climatology departments across the United States and abroad. I guess that wouldn’t be a conspiracy?
Boris,
Groupthink does not require an overt conspiracy to function. I suggest you read Bernard Goldberg’s book Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News for a classic case study of groupthink in action.
Or, in short:
Boris,
Your statement has every bit as much support as this one does:
That’s clearly cannibalism you’re proposing there Boris, and it’s revolting. I don’t see how you expect to conduct a rational debate with decent folk while you flaunt such ideas.
Wait, what. Has nothing to do with anything you said, you say. I totally made that up, you say. mmhmm.
Mark Steyn isn’t proposing groupthink, he is proposing deliberate retribution. Moreover, he is saying that all young climate scientists know that this retribution will occur.
Boris,
How are ‘deliberate retribution’ and ‘groupthink’ mutually exclusive? And your response doesn’t explain your lust for the taste of human flesh either.
Boris,
Do you suppose that there is a conspiracy to shun those (like yourself) who like to eat other people. Because I’m pretty sure that’s not the answer to that particular puzzle.
Merely because it’s convenient to paint your opposition as cannibalistic (sorry, I meant barking-tin-foil-hat-wearing-mad) doesn’t mean it’s justified.
Re: Boris (May 14 12:43),
And you know this how(not rhetorical)? You have provided zero textual support for this assertion.
Boris (Comment #129279)
May 14th, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Mark Steyn isn’t proposing groupthink, he is proposing deliberate retribution. Moreover, he is saying that all young climate scientists know that this retribution will occur.
Hummm…..does this count as “retribution”
http://bishophill.squarespace.com
In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory hoard of GWPF. His letter reads :
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”
I see no evidence that Steyn is ascribing his conspiracy to groupthink.
So you guys agree that all tenure committees will deny tenure to anyone who criticizes the work of Michael Mann or any of the climate “mullahs”?
Ah, Ed, great question. Since the GWPF makes really terrible arguments like:
“why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets)”
or
“How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas?”
Would you want to be associated with these terrible arguments and inaccurate statements? I wouldn’t. And I wouldn’t want to co-author a paper with someone who endorsed them. Groupthink or holding people accountable for supporting terrible arguments–you decide.
No, that’d be your conspiracy, eater-of-humans.
You’ve put forward the idea and failed to support it. The burden is not on us to provide evidence for groupthink, but on you to provide evidence for conspiracy.
It’s a completely separate question.
Boris,
I don’t see your position supported by Steyn’s text. Steyn says young faculty would know that if they cross seniors in the field, they won’t get grants, and tenure.
The funding process in the US requires people to submit proposals which get sent out to senior scientists. To get funded, you need a favorable reviews. It’s true that if you cross someone, they are much less likely to write a favorable review — that’s true in anything. As not getting said favorable review means no funding: yes, if one crosses seniors in the field, they are less likely to get funding. But this doesn’t involve “coordination” nor even “conspiracy” among the seniors in the field. Each can act individually, with no discussion or plan. Each of the seniors in the field might even believe they are being objective and giving fair reviews. And, moreover, none of those seniors in the field created this system– it’s existed for a long time. So, the mechanism for the “no funding” involves absolutely no “conspiracy”.
Exactly similar things happen during the tenure process: one has to get seniors in the field to rate your work. If senior members in your field dislike because you’ve “crossed” them, they’ll either decline to write a review or give you a harsh one. You are likely to find it difficult to impossible to get tenure. Each could do this independently with no coordination, consultation and so on. There would once again be no “conspiracy”.
Given the system at it stands, it is unwise for any young academic to “cross” senior researchers in any field.
Now: Whether it’s true that young academics need to especially tip-toe around Mann, Mann’s work and/or avoid saying much about Mann could be debated. I don’t if seniors in the field think criticizing Mann or Mann’s work constitutes “crossing” them. If they do: then doing so could be harmful to the career or a young scientists, if they don’t, then it’s not. But either way: the reactions of opinions of individuals even if shared does not constitute their being involved in a “conspiracy”.
If people all happening to share the same views all giving bad reviews on funding proposals was a “conspiracy”, then all those biologists giving unfavorable reviews to proposals to disprove evolution would be involved in a “conspiracy”. They aren’t. They just happen to all individually believe such work is not worth funding.
I agree–the reason that people believe the way Steyn believes on climate don’t get tenure is because they are equivalent to people in biology believing dumb things about evolution.
But you are forgetting the part where Steyn claims that most climate scientists know that Mann is a fraud:
So clearly it takes a conspiracy of some sort to hold together this shared falsehood and to collectively act to suppress criticism of it. I’ll admit his conspiracy theory doesn’t make a lot sense.
Boris,
I’ll drop the cannibal thing. Reading one fallacious argument is bad enough without having to see it mirrored by my response every other comment. If you don’t understand the point by now, you’re not going to. At least, you’re not going to acknowledge it.
But I still maintain that every time you say ‘clearly it takes a conspiracy’, that’s your ideation, and you ought to get the tin foil hat credit for it. Maybe with a bonus for projection.
No Boris. Again, take you. You are the perfect example. Here you are on the Blackboard, attempting to smear Steyn and defend Mann.
I’m as sure of this as I’m sure of anything – nobody thinks you’re part of a conspiracy.. Yet we can find people just like you, like-minded folk all over the blogosphere. Coordinated activity? Collective action? How can this be, without a conspiracy?
Easy. Happens all the time. People individually defend positions they believe in, their ideology, preferences, prejudices, so on. They don’t have to coordinate to do so.
Boris
I haven’t forgotten it. I don’t see how Steyn’s claiming this turns Steyn’s claims into one that a “conspiracy” of any sort exists.
Do you think “remembering” Steyn claims this somehow supports your contention that Steyn is suggesting a “conspiracy”? If yes, how? (Not rhetorical.)
You keep claiming that there “clearly” it takes some sort of conspiracy for something to happen.
Not only is there no clearly suggested “conspiracy”, I don’t see anything that I can read to tell me who or what you think Steyn is suggesting amounts to a conspiracy. To clarify what you think Steyn is suggesting tell me precisely:
1) what you think Steyn is accusing some collection of people of doing: be specific here.
2) who the collection of people Steyn is accusing actually are (you previously intimated “tenure committees”_- but that has no textual basis)
3) how this collection of people are coordinating their activities to act together.
Then point to the bits in Steyn’s text that says “who” the conspirators are, “what” they are doing, and “how” they are coordinating to accomplish their goal.
As far as I can see, you need all these bits including 3 to distinguish a conspiracy theory from something that happens merely because a group of people all share opinions and act independently based on their own opinions. (As in the Evolution example.)
And if you are going to suggest that Steyn is suggesting a conspiracy, all three feature must be involved in the mechanism Steyn discusses for Steyn to be proposing a conspiracy rather than just suggesting “people know that if you do X then bad thing will happen to you (for reasons that need not have anything to do with any ‘conspiracy.)”
So if you are going to say it’s “clear” Steyn is suggesting a conspiracy your going to have to explain what the conspiracy is rather than just merely point out that Steyn is saying people think bad things will happen to them if they do “X”.
If you can’t pinpoint the elements of “the conspiracy” you think Steyn is clearly saying exists, I would suggest that you are simply wrong. He is not suggesting a conspiracy.
Boris, you know why all those deniers believe in conspiracy theories, don’t you? It’s because the evil energy companies and the Koch brothers are paying off crooked scientist to lie for them, just like the tobacco companies did! Just read Merchants of Doubt, or various editorials in Science, or The Subterranean War on Science by Lewandowsky, Mann, et al. You see, it’s all a bunch of evil people, working behind to scene, to undermine science. I think there’s a word for that, but it escapes me at the moment.
Boris (Comment #129285)
May 14th, 2014 at 2:01 pm
Ah, Ed, great question. Since the GWPF makes really terrible arguments like:
“why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets)â€
or
“How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas?†Would you want to be associated with these terrible arguments and inaccurate statements? I wouldn’t.
——-
I was very confused at first when reading this of yours as I kept looking for the /sark tag. Then I realized you were serious. How strange, you seem to be d*nying the obvious conclusions to the real, as opposed to imaginary, data.
Loved this one. No “retribution” here 🙂
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26187711
“The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change†should be sacked.
Or, the Greens all time fail
No pressure, just ask 10:10
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM
It’s come to being like-minded means being part of a conspiracy. I think that is crazy. Boris?
It’s in the quote I provided: “if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you’ll be cut off like Briffa’s tree rings.”
You have to ask Steyn. As for tenure committees “there goes tenure” seems to indicate such. Maybe I’m wrong–although I will point out it is a hallmark of conspiracy theories that the perpetrators are non-specific.
Beats me.
Again, one common characteristic of conspiracy theories is that they don’t provide these kind of specifics. They blame vague shadowy groups–like climate “mullahs.”
Boris,
Never crosses your mind that you can’t answer these questions or make sense of it because you’ve put forward a nonsensical proposition, apparently.
It’s nuts, it doesn’t make sense, and it’s all that guy over there, not me.
Boris
That’s not an action. That’s a consequence. I asked you what action the climate mullah’s will take to cause this consequence to happen. For the mullah’s to be involved in a conspiracy, they have to do something to bring about the consequence. So: what action
You’re the one who is saying that Steyn is “clearly” describing the existence of a conspiracy. You already missed the “action”, and it’s also clear you don’t know who you think he is accusing of being involved in this conspiracy which seems to involve no action on anyone’s part!
Once again: you claim that Steyn clearly is describing a conspiracy. But you don’t even know how the unnamed people doing the unknown activities are coordinating their actions!
This is really rather amazing. You claim to “clearly” see Steyn describing a “conspiracy” that might consist of: (a) unknown people (b) doing nothing (c) and not coordinating their inaction.
Once again: intimating that there can be consequences to an action is not a suggestion that a conspiracy exists. It’s just not.
Look: They at least have to involve a action. For example: The CIA (or mafia or Castro) killed JFK at least intimates that the CIA (or mafia or Castro) did the killing. And who ever did the killing had to be coordinate their actions to achieve the goal.
In contrast: if prior to the shotting, someone advised JFK: “Don’t drive with the top down on your roof. It’s dangerous”. That person would not be intimating a ”conspiracy” exists (though one may). Or saying: “People don’t walk there because there are land mines” is also not intimating a conspiracy even though there is a consequence.
But you are inferring the existence of a “conspiracy theory” based on consequences only– and that’s wrong.
Yes, conspiracy theories are nuts and don’t make sense.
Thanks for the entertainment Boris. You do your tribe proud.
They are denying tenure, withholding funding. These are actions.
Um, you already stated who is doing the action (the denying of tenure)–it’s “the mullah’s.” You just typed it. Did you forget typing it already?
Okay, so you’ve create this huge strawman argument that conspiracy theories must be super specific and detailed in terms of how they are executed. But this is the exact opposite of reality.
Conspiracy theorists will tell you a missile hit the pentagon. They don’t tell you who did it other than the government. They don’t tell you how they it or what happened to the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. (Okay some of them do–but most don’t.) In your bizarre world it’s not a conspiracy theory unless they say who fired the missile and who gave the order and what color shirt the guy firing the missile was wearing.
Wrong. The mullahs and acolytes are denying the tenure. Unless you are arguing that Steyn is saying that the denying of tenure is just some coincidence–which makes no sense.
Obviously Steyn can’t point specifically to the people who are denying tenure to those poor young climate scientists–because it isn’t actually happening.
Boris says that peer pressure and group think don’t happen in the academic world.
Boris says that peer pressure and group think in the case of Bengsston is justified and understandable.
Check that data again.
Boris,
Oh? Is this the “mullah” or ‘Steyn’s” action? How can Mann deny tenure to someone at university of “not even the University where Mann works”? Answer: He can’t. And Steyn didn’t say or suggest he or any climate Mullah could do so. You are making this “action” up– it’s not Steyn’s claim.” Mann himself also can’t withhold funding. So this can’t be an act Mann is accused of.
‘
Uhmmm… no. You already said you don’t know who the mullah’s even are. We know Mann can’t deny anyone tenure. So, he doesn’t even have power to do this. Until you say who the “mullah’s” are, we still don’t have anyone who can do the act you claim Steyn is saying someone is “conspiring” to do. (And in fact, Steyn hasn’t said anyone or group is conspiring to do this– it’s your fevered imagination.)
Super specific? huh? There must be an action and people must collude in doing the action. If you want an conspiracy to be “people were conspiring that it will rain tomorrow” … well… uhmmm… ok. But ‘conspiring’ seems to mean “hoping”. And in which case: so what if people “hope”?
Uhmmm… So, previously, you didn’t know “who” they were. But now, you seem to think they are “tenure committees”. After all: that’s the only group that can deny tenure. Problem: There is absolutely zero text to suggest Steyn means this (and that’s presumably why you don’t know “who” he is accusing of being involved in the conspiracy.) It’s a figment of your imagination– which you concocted to create a “conspiracy theory”.
As for your other issues:
That’s still “people in the government”, not “no one”. And more specifically: something specifically was done: for example: a missile was launched by someone who launched it on purpose with the intention of some consequence. The theorist don’t think the missile launched itself or was launched by accident. You don’t seem to “get” this aspect of “conspiracy”.
I didn’t say it was a “coincidence”. But you continue to ‘not grok’ that something can be a consequence of ‘X’ without any conspiracy causing “X”. For example: Drunkenness and vomitting can be consequence of drinking 1 bottle of wine in less than 3 hours. That doesn’t mean that any “conspiracy” is involved in causing the person who drank and then vomited to vomit.
Les
Actually, I think that Boris is suggesting Steyn can’t think that these can happen in the academic world and so Steyn must be suggesting something else.
But Steyn can perfectly well think these happen– and can in fact think any number of things other than the mechanism Boris imagines. But Boris is assuming that Steyn cannot think all sorts of things- each of which makes sense and is consistent with reality and the words Steyn wrote– but must instead be advancing a theory that (a) Steyn did not actually describe and (b) which theory (dreamed up by Boris) Boris thinks doesn’t make any sense.
This tells us more about Boris than Steyn!
A half dozen years ago, George Taylor, faculty member at Oregon State University and State Climatologist for 19 years, was forced to retire early, as he did not adhere to the IPCC view, but believed natural variability had an important role in climate change.
What Mark Steyn said.
Your argument is that Steyn’s dumb conspiracy can’t possibly be true. We both know it’s not true. Impossibility is rarely a concern for a conspiracy theorist.
I don’t know who the “mullahs” are. That is Steyn’s word. You know you are quoting him and not me, right? Ask him who they are.
We’ve been through this. You claim that denying tenure (or threatening to deny tenure) is not an action? That “mullahs” and “Mann” don’t refer to real world people? That isn’t a sensible position.
That’s like saying that the guy claiming the government fired a missile at the Pentagon isn’t engaging in a conspiracy theory because he doesn’t specifically name who fired it.
Ooh..mystery quotes from nowhere. Mann is a person. “Mullahs” and “acolytes” refer to people. Not “no one.”
Yes, but you continue not to read what Steyn is saying. He is not saying it’s just a consequence, he is saying it is “retribution.” Consistent with words actually having meanings, this illustrates that Steyn is saying these are intentional acts meant to punish.
Some synonyms of “retribution”: payback, reprisal, requital, retaliation, revenge, vengeance. Seems pretty clear.
Boris
No. My argument is you have no evidence Steyn suggested these things. But it’s also true that (a) you don’t even know who you think he accused and (b) those people who might be able to do these things are clearly not called out in Steyn’s text and so it’s odd for you to claim these people he did not call out supposedly are going to perform acts he did not accuse anyone of doing.
You are the one claiming he advanced a “clear” conspiracy theory. If you think it’s “clear”, you ought to be able to fill in the elements of the “conspiracy. But you can’t.
Obviously he won’t be able to tell us the conspiracy theory he did not even advance. But you ought to be able to tell us the one you claim he advanced!
Steyn didn’t say anyone was colluding or conspiring to deny anyone tenure. To “diagnose” the conspiracy theory you are decreeing as advanced by Steyn, you are somehow deeming that someone not getting tenure ‘must’ be the result of a “conspiracy”. You are confusing someone being denied tenure — by non-conspirators who are not “climate mullahs” as an accusation that “climate mullah’s” would be the ones doing the denying. But this is your mistake on agency– that is: the “mullahs'” have not been accused of doing the actual denial of tenure. The text simply doesn’t say that.
I’ve read what he wrote. Sure: he’s saying people fear retribution for speaking out. Steyn thinking people fearing retribution doesn’t mean Steyn is accusing anyone of ‘conspiring’ or acting collectively to do anything. Retribution can arise due to group think– that is people all individually think someone is wrong and so fail to endorse that person. That person then doesn’t get grants and so on. You seem to not want to actually identify elements requried for an actual conspiracy when diagnosing a conspiracy and instead want to see it in other non-conspiratorial things. (Like adverse consequences.)
It is pretty clear: None of these are “consipiracy”. All can be done by individuals. They don’t require one iota of collective action.
What? How can you misread what I’ve said so badly? I said “Clearly, he is advancing a conspiracy theory.” In English usage that means I think the fact that he is expressing a conspiracy theory is clear.
Clearly, he is advancing a muddled conspiracy theory.
And again, you return to this false definition of a conspiracy theory. As long as you think a conspiracy theory has to be clear and rational–contrary to virtually every conspiracy theory ever put forth–then the conversation is pointless.
Yes, but when you call people ayatollahs and compare them to Boca Haram, or say they are issuing fatwas–that is certainly indicative of collective action. As is the term acolytes.
Is anyone at least willing to admit that comparing the climate community to Islamic extremists is stupid?
Calling people names is bad but it’s not saying they are involved in a conspiracy. Calling someone an accolyte (follower as in “acolytes jumping you in the parking lot and taking the hockey stick to you” ) also doesn’t mean a Steyn is suggesting that Mann has created a conspiracy to have his followers jump people in parking lots. That entire sentences is called “hyperbole”. More importantly people (even Mann) can be followers without a conspiracy existing– for example, fans can act independently of the leader. (This happens with sports fans who will “defend” their sports hero and sometimes get into violent fights. The ‘hero’ or ‘team’ have nothing to do with this, and the nutty fan and ‘hero’ are not involved in any ‘conspiracy’). So, it is ridiculous to say that Steyn describing a situation that would not be a conspiracy if it involved actors other than Mann and his fans must be suggesting the existence of a conspiracy on that basis.
We can skip what accusing them of issuing fatwas would mean because Steyn didn’t do so.
I didn’t say it has to be clear and rational. I have no idea why you keep repeating the notion that I am claiming it has to be rational– I’ve never, ever, ever said so. I said it has to involve collusion and those colluding planning collective actions. It can be as irrational as you like– but you haven’t shown Steyn intmated one iota of collusion nor any collective action by the actors.
And yet, though you think this fact is clear you can’t point out any of the elements of a conspiracy! And no– I’m not complaining that you are thinking he is saying people are doing something irrational– I’m saying you are reading in something he is not even saying. And your reading in elements that would be irrational– but Steyn hasn’t said them. This is idiotic– of you.
Boris
Absolutely. I not only admit that, I think Steyn uses ridiculously inflamed hyperbolic rhetoric. He calls people names. He uses loaded language.
He just doesn’t happen to be describing the existence of “a conspiracy”. And you can’t turn it what he wrote into an accusation of a “conspiracy” by noticing the language is hyperbolic, inflamed, ad hom and so on.
Boris,
Since you raise the question of defining a conspiracy:
Conspiracy:
The idea that anybody had to make a secret plan is the missing element. Steyn didn’t say this, didn’t imply it, and probably doesn’t believe it. You are the only person here who seems to think a secret plan would necessarily be implied by anything Steyn said.
You have been given examples that demonstrate this need not be so that you have simply chosen to ignore. Since examples exist that demonstrate no secret plan is required, it is not necessarily implied that a secret plan exists, therefore the idea that Steyn is proposing that a conspiracy exists fails. It’s not what he’s saying.
It’s perfectly fine to ignore the fact that you’ve been refuted. It’s a free country. Still, you’ve been refuted.
Do you believe that there was a secret plan in the U.S. to mistreat black people prior to civil rights? See, I don’t. Widespread harmful action against a group of people need not have basis in conspiracy. It can be rooted in people’s individual ignorance and prejudice just as easily. More easily, in fact. There are abundant examples of this scattered throughout history that you could easily see if only you’d put down the conspiracy theory stick and open your eyes.
Poor Boris came by for an argument but forgot to bring any points. Instead he only offers more vacuous climate obsessed talking points that depend on circular reasoning and Gavin Schmidt approved faith tests. Sort of a Lewandowsky mini-me. And comparing climate obsessed kooks to Islamic extremists is less insulting that comparing skeptics to holocaust den^ers.
But I’m sorry I missed this Boris, you actually hit on something interesting here IMO and I ignored it:
Since you mention this, do you think that Ayatollahs issuing fatwas are a conspiracy? (not rhetorical). I don’t think so. I think an Ayatollah is a respected leader of a people [who] adhere to a similar set of beliefs. When an Ayatollah speaks, people with similar beliefs often listen. I don’t think this constitutes a conspiracy though.
To give you a more comfortable boot of a similar design to try on, is it ‘conspiracy’ when right wing kooks get worked up listening to someone like Glen Beck? Personally I don’t think anyone would call that conspiracy.
Another way of looking at it. Is Twitter a vast conspiracy engine? (I don’t think so) Mann has 18K ‘followers’. They listen to what he has to say, tweets often constituting attacks on skeptics and critics. Is it conspiracy theorism to note this? (I doubt it)
You can only stretch the term so far before it becomes meaningless.
Boris,
By the way, when last you were here, you expressed the opinion that people in the less developed world wouldn’t know what to do with technology, specifically solar panels and battery packs, if you gave it to them. Do you still hold that view? It doesn’t seem to fit with the usual left-liberal world view and casts you in a rather bad light.
Mark Bofill
The reason no one call observing this behavior on the part of Mann and his twitter followers a “conspiracy” is that the behavior itself is not a “conspiracy”. It’s just a bunch of people interacting and reacting. It might be “mob action”. Someone (possibly Steyn) might dislike their behavior. Someone else (possibly a young academic) might curb their own to avoid the consequences of the Mann-tweet-> accolyte-tweet->whatever chain of events. But Mann and his “accolytes” (i.e. twitter followers) taking part in a chain of events of this sort does not involve “conspiring” and so claiming it happens can’t be a “conspiracy theory”. (And it’s not a “conspiracy theory” whether or not the behavior occurs. Because even if someone was hallucinating about the number of Mann followers, their retweeting, and the consequences of the retweeting etc, the elements of ‘conspiracy’ are still not there.
But that’s just the problem with Boris’s claim that Steyn has a “conspiracy theory”. Nothing about Steyn’s claim involves the key elements required to turn some sort of behavior into a “conspiracy”. Steyn uses inflamed rhetoric, uses loaded language, calls people names, doesn’t like what’s going on and so on. But those aren’t the elements required for something to be a “conspiracy theory”.
Lucia,
Yup.
I think it’d be interesting (well. not really. amusing might be more truthful) to read a study correlating climate alarmism with paranoia about conspiracy theory and conspiracy theory projection. Dr. Lewandowsky has already carved the path with his ground breaking work, all that’s needed is a similarly fearless researcher with an agenda and no sense of smell to follow in his footsteps.
Can’t we accept Mann’s explanation that he tweeted (paraphrasing): if you associate yourself with “anti-science” groups, then “pro-science” people will naturally choose to disassociate themselves from you, and not engage in joint activities, like co-authoring papers, with you.
I don’t think Mann is positing a conspiracy, or even any coordination between members of the “pro-science” tribe, just a common shared world view and common shared group tendencies.
Moreover, since we know that Mann defines himself as “pro-science”, and his critics as “anti-science”, I think substituting “pro-Mann and anti-Mann wouldn’t really change the meaning of Mann’s tweets, from Mann’s point of view.
And, amazingly, after that substitution, you pretty much have the gist of Steyn’s article.
Mann and Steyn AGREE about what happened and why. They just disagree about who it happens to (because they see the science/climate issues differently, and consequently define “pro-science” and “anti-science” differently).
I also think they probably disagree about whether it’s a good thing to encourage dissenting views. Mann, afaics, seems comfortable for dissenters whom he has judged incorrect to be silenced, whereas Steyn seems to lean towards all views being expressed and exposed to scrutiny.
Copner,
Excellent observation. Not only do I think you’re correct that Mann and Steyn agree, but I think it’s clear that Boris agrees when viewed in this light:
Everybody agrees. This puts me in the mood for carrot cake.
Richard Hofstadter’s article: The Paranoid Style in American Politics would seem to be on point here. The paranoid style seems to be marked by an obsession with supposed conspiracies that are either causing bad things to happen or preventing good things from happening. The Left’s obsession with the Koch brothers, leading to an actual proposal to rewrite the First Amendment, appears to fall into this category.
I think Gavin’s “good faith test” is a notable milestone on the road the climate obsessed community is traveling down.
Lewadowsky would pass the faith test with flying colors. So would Peter Gleick. But at last leaders in the climate obsessed community are openly discussing the faith-based nature of their beliefs. This is an improvement.
This conspiracy detour Boris is providing is a great demonstration of his adherence to the faith.
De Witt,
Ignorance combined with fear seems to a necessary combination for the extremists. They need to be ignorant to think that the Koch brothers actually offer an actual threat to America. They have to be deeply afraid to believe that intimidating an old academic from excercising his conscience in a lawful manner is a good thing.
People of a certain ideological bent don’t need conspiracies because they all think the same. For example, belief in the quality of the Hockey Stick is part of a membership ritual. Belief that all who disagree have malicious motives is a concomitant part of the process.
Boris has conflated (1) The Lewandowsky projection conspiracy idiocy with (2) the obligatory denunciations of arch-heretic Steyn. The combination does not really work for logical and factual reasons presented by several commentators supra and thus comes off as rather stupid but within Boris’ tribe this line of argument earns extra credit and membership points which is all that really matters.
Right. That was Steve McIntyre, I believe.
You’ve said repeatedly that it can’t be a conspiracy theory–as in “Until you say who the “mullah’s†are, we still don’t have anyone who can do the act you claim Steyn is saying someone is “conspiring†to do.”–as if it’s my fault that Steyn’s conspiracy isn’t clear. I’m glad you are running away from that horrible argument–but don’t pretend you didn’t type it.
Oh, no. You’re not going to back to it again, are you?
The thread advanced in comments by 50% over semantic parsing of the existence of a conspiracy theory. Has the Mann fallen so far?
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but I can’t wait to see how you’ve misread one of my posts.
Yay! Concord at last. I hope you don’t change your mind when you notice McIntyre did it too. 🙂
Come on Boris.
Based on Copner’s insight above, we’ve run a project. We’ve analysed and categorized Mann’s comments, Steyn’s comments, and your comments, and discovered that you (yes you!) are part of the 97% Consensus that says Steyn isn’t indulging in conspiratorial ideation. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t know it, our results are incontrovertible. Our methodology is inscrutable, in the finest climate science tradition. The Presidential tweet is doubtless in the queue. I’ve already called for carrot cake. It’s a done deal. Don’t mess this up for me now.
Boris,
In other words: You are changing the subject away from your claim about what Steyn wrote to something else. Let’s stick to your supporting your claim about Steyn before we move on to some other claim you might want to make.
Boris: I said there are conditions that involve people having to act and collude. You haven’t shown these. The fact that you don’t know who the people are makes things even more difficult– but even as anonymous parties, you don’t have any actions.
As for naming the mullah’s: I don’t think you need to name individuals. But you need to be able to describe the category using some word other than “mullah”.
Moreover, your lack of any identifyable features goes well beyond the vagueness of lack of specific named individuals in many conspiracies. You don’t even have a category of people who the “mullah’s” might be. At least when people identify “the government” in a conspiracy, we know that people who are not in “the government” aren’t in the conspiracy. And in fact, most conspiracy theories don’t just say “the government”, they will name some branch (e.g. Chicago police. CIA. IRS. What not.)
But the main thing is the “people” in the conspiracy are those who did something specific.
Here you don’t even have a clue “who” the mullah’s might be and one reason you don’t is you don’t have clue 1 what you think Steyn claims they did. If you could find an action, you would come up with a category of people that can be described using some word other than “mullah”. Are they twitter followers? Are they members of a tenure committee? (Note: these would generally not be people in climate so ‘climate mullah’ would be a weird word. They would be other faculty in numerous fields at a university. ) Are they every single person working in climate? Are they people who discuss their plans to launch a letter writing campaign on some super-secret climate forum like Planet3.0? What? If They are a category of people who did what?
The problem is you don’t know what “they” did.
Of course we will keep getting back to the fact that you have not found any elements of a conspiracy until you find some. Saying we are “back” here doesn’t make up for your not finding any!
Boris
Good lord. Next you’ll be saying someone saying a group calling something ‘a heresy’ or someone a “heretic” is ‘comparing them to the pope’.
Re: Boris (May 15 11:10),
Here is what I wrote and your reply:
You were taken to task by TerryS and Carrick. You offered no reply or explanation. So I’m not the only one who ‘misread’ your post. If I’d made such a boneheaded and bigoted statement, I’d disappear for a while and try to forget it too.
Well, actually, no I wouldn’t.
George Tobin (Comment #129327)
May 15th, 2014 at 10:58 am
I basically agree with you, except [in my opinion] it doesn’t require a certain ideology. I live in Alabama, in the U.S.. Strangely I haven’t encountered hordes of obvious ‘good ole boys‘ here yet, but I’m sure they must be around somewhere. Perhaps in these politically correct times they merely camouflage well.
My point is simply that people acting in concert because of individual beliefs without coordination or conspiracy is more prevalent than might be immediately obvious.
No. You said repeatedly that it was important to know exactly who was doing the conspiring. Once again, nice job abandoning that, but you did write it.
I wonder why he didn’t say “heresy.” Hmm….
Meh, Boris. So? Say you’re right. What’s your point? Lucia misspoke? (my answer): It’s not that interesting. Annoying, perhaps, but not interesting.
But this seems to be a common theme with you. You don’t appear to understand what Steyn said, is what got this going in the first place. You sure you understand what Lucia said?
Of all the stupid posts ever on The Blackboard, this might be the stupidest. And hunter posts here!
(My point was: Why whine about solar power not going to Africa instead of food or medical care? Wait–can we have food in silicon valley AND food in Africa? Sure. Can we have medical care in Silicon Valley AND in Africa? Sure. But we can’t have solar power in Silicon Valley AND in Africa? Only Africa? Why?)
Please tell me this is just a dumb “Look Boris, I can twist your words too! HAHA!” argument. I mean, that would still be stupid, but it wouldn’t be the despicable accusation you seem to be putting forth here.
It’s annoying that people make arguments and then claim they didn’t make them. That’s all.
And, Dewitt, I still don’t see how I’m a bigot for talking about a sandwich and an MRI. Somebody help me out here.
Boris,
You finally get a logo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3Z2MP8vMWU
“That’s despicable!”
Boris, you are still making circular arguments with no actual point. Call names all you want. It still leaves you as a derivative maroon.
“Can we have medical care in Silicon Valley AND in Africa? Sure. But we can’t have solar power in Silicon Valley AND in Africa? Only Africa? Why?)
the loch ness curve or Nessie Curve. The Nessie curve is a derivitive of the Duck Curve which we worry about here in CA.
you can have some solar in Silicon Valley. many houses in my old neighborhood did.. this was from the first attempt decades ago.
There is a limit however to what you can do and a death spiral to avoid.
basically they can make a mess of the grid
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiis-solar-grid-landscape-and-the-nessie-curve
The Islands might be a good place for solar, as cloud cover has decreased up to 11% per decade.
.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021322/abstract
.
Well, except for the grid issue, of course.
Les, the author of the piece is a close friend so Ive been getting some education on the grid issues. nasty nasty nasty.
of course rolling out solar in Africa doesnt have these problems.
That I think is the point that most reasonable people could see.
the switch to renewables is going to take longer than people want (if they want it ) good thing we have NG we can bridge to that future
say 50 years down the road.
Having lived 10 years in Africa, I would agree. There is no grid in much of the continent, so solar is actually viable, at least for modest applications.
I am not sure renewables will ever be a mainstay of future power systems. Most projections I see, don’t have wind and solar getting much past 10% of total, even by 2050.
NG is indeed a bridge fuel, to either renewables or some new disruptive technology.
Boris,
We, the government and the other rate payers, are subsidizing, through tax breaks and forced excess power buy backs at retail, the installation of solar power arrays in the US for people who are much better off financially than the average person in the US, not to mention the average person in the less developed world. My sandwich wasn’t being subsidized, although you could probably make an argument that if I had had an MRI, that was subsidized. Both those are one-offs, though. A solar power array with battery backup just keeps on giving. So your reply is still nonsense and still insensitive.
If someone wants to install a solar power array on his own dime and not force the power company to buy any excess power at retail, that’s just fine. I also object on moral grounds to subsidies for other uneconomic forms of renewable energy like wind and ethanol, especially ethanol from corn, since that has a direct effect on global grain prices.
DeWitt, actually there’s no federal tax credit for solar panel installs now, and no required buy back in many states.
So whether there’s a subsidy depends on the state, and in some states like mine, what your specific power association is, as to whether there’s even any compensation for excess power generation.
[Roughly 2/3s of the states require buy-back at the retail price, which I agree is unfair.]
Dewitt,
Let me get this straight: my comment was bigoted because of subsidies? (A topic your original post doesn’t even mention, BTW)
Moreover, if people in Silicon Valley and the developed world don’t buy solar power, then no one makes it for Africa.
So not only was your smear baseless, it was economically naive. Congratulations?
Boris,
I didn’t mispeak and I didn’t deny making an argument I actually made.
Lucia,
I’ve got this urge to clarify that I never said you misspoke. I was verifying that there was no larger significance to the issue.
Of course, this is an unnecessary [clarification] because you’ve demonstrated you can read and comprehend English.
unlike some people…
🙂
Lucia, recall that you said:
number 2 was:
And you reiterated:
Presumably the three elements you mentioned earlier, including number two.
And you are still arguing that Steyn can’t be arguing for a conspiracy because “climate mullahs” isn’t specific enough. That is a dumb argument. You keep making it. And then intimating that you are not making it. This whole conversation borders on the insane.
Boris,
But by “collection” I didn’t mean we need actual names– but that for us to see this is a “conspiracy theory” you or the person reading what Steyn wrote needs to identify them more specifically than “mullahs”. I’ve already gone over this: For example: are these people on tenure committee? Are they “the government” etc. Are they kindergarden teachers? Or what?
Boris
I’m saying no conspiracy theory can be identified by you (or anyone) in what he wrote. You on the other hand say it is “clear” that he is identifying one. I hate to break it to you but this is a case where if the issue is ambiguous, I have the correct position.
I also think no conspiracy theory is there.
And beyond that: You can’t just collapse my argument into one plank even if you interpreted it correctly. I’ve said over and over that the group has to collude to do an action. You seem to keep wanting to avoid that even if you think “mullahs” is a sufficiently defined group, there is no indication of “action” or “collusion”. None.
Denying tenure is an action. Cutting funding is an action. How far down the rabbit hole are we?
Yes, and this is actually a decent argument, so I don’t know why you are playing games with arguing that denying tenure isn’t an action. I disagree–I think Steyn is implying collusion–especially since he thinks that most scenarists think Mann is a fraud and a liar. But at least the logic makes sense.
Boris,
It might be an action– but Steyn didn’t actually say someone (especially a “climate mullah”) would perform the action of “denying tenure”. All Steyn said is the researcher wouldn’t obtain tenure. This does not connect it to “a mullah” in anyway. And there are many paths to not getting tenure. So, in fact, Steyn hasn’t even intimated that the “mullah’s” (whoever they might be) are the ones “denying tenure” or “preventing grants” or so on. So these are not “actions” on the part of any “mullah” (whoever you think they might be). They are merely consequences.
And my point isn’t that it’s not possible for a mullah (whoever the might be) to perform this action. It’s that Steyn did not accuse the mullahs of taking this action.
That is: the “mullahs” whoever they might be are not identified as being the “actors who deny tenure”. That’s where you are failing to “identify” them with being members of any sort of conspiracy.
Ok. You think that. But it’s difficult to locate the basis for your opinion. You thikn he’s implying collusion between what sorts of people do take what acts? Please point to text he wrote to make you think that (as opposed to thinking something else).
In fact: you can’t point to text because doesn’t say the “mullah’s” are denying tenure or yanking funding. And we all know that many paths to “not getting tenure” and almost none require any action on the part of a “climate mulla”– so why in the heck would anyone assume that Steyn can’t be suggesting all these skillians of others paths that do exist. (Notably– you agree non-collusional paths to exert pressure on people exist in the GWPF indicent. So: why can’t Steyn be suggesting this sort of thing? (Please use Steyn’s text to show why what he wrote is inconsistent with that: note you can’t. Because nothing is. And it’s likely what he means.)
No. Your logic is screwed up. You are assuming that he “must” be suggesting something a consequence would occur as a result of
(a) a method he did not describe and
(b) which method isn’t even possible when
(c) the consequence he said would occur can come about by a known method.
It’s not ‘logical’ to assume he is “suggesting” something which cannot happen and he did not describe when what he actually does describe happens– and which mechanisms you recognize happens in other situations!
:>
I told you Boris. You’d better get that checked. The only conspiratorial ideation in the room is yours.
Boris,
You do understand the irony that you’re taking umbrage at me for reading something into a statement of yours that you don’t think is there, while reading something into Steyn’s statement that no one else here thinks is there. But then I’m a firm believer that irony always increases.
Again, Steyn says that most scientists think Mann is a liar an a fraud. Yet, every young scientist knows that she can’t get tenure or funding if she agrees with Mann. Explain how everyone gets denied tenure for crossing Mann if most scientists think Mann is a liar and a fraud.
Again, Steyn believes most scientists think Mann is wrong.
More Steyn:
Wait..does a “climate of fear” sound like people are just agreeing with one another. And, of course you agree “imposing” is an action, yes?
Oh, I know “hyperbole!” Well, I don’t think it is. I take him at his word that he thinks there is some nefarious criminal (or at least immoral) conspiracy going on here. I see nothing showing that to be wrong.
I don’t know why you have this bizarre need to defend this guy–twisting my words, inventing iron-clad criteria for what constitutes a “conspiracy theory.” I mean, I suspect why, but it’ be just a guess.
Dewitt,
So I called it when I said “Please tell me this is just a dumb “Look Boris, I can twist your words too! HAHA!â€? Or do you actually believe I’m a bigot for talking about sandwiches? I don’t want to twist your words here.
This whole argument reminds me of an article I read way back during the 1980’s when a western reporter interviewed an editor at Pravda. He stated to the reporter that there was no censorship in the Soviet Union.
He said that censorship was unneeded because editors knew what could be printed and what could not.
Boris
Steyn’s claim about what most scientists think my be correct or incorrect, but either way, this is not an element of any sort of conspiracy theory. scientists think or do not think does
Steyn didn’t say this. It also doesn’t say she won’t get tenure or funding if she disagrees with Mann.
I already explained how crossing seniors in any field of science including can result in making it difficult to impossible to get funding, published and recommendations for tenure. The process does not involve “conspiracy”. Please see my earlier comment which contained the discussion which you have merely ignored.
Again: So? How does this show that Steyn is saying there is some sort of conspiracy? You– who think it does– have failed to say how it might say so.
Uhh… and the conspiracy in this is….?
Mann does tweet. He has sued people. And others do. But these actions, which actually have happened aren’t a “conspiracy” because they don’t meet the definition of “conspiracy”. And yet, the actions can instill fear. So… how would creating a climate a fear imply a “conspiracy”?
Well that is how would you say they imply a conspiracy unless you think those actions actually do constitute a conspiracy? Because as far as I can see either (a) those actions are a conspiracy and in which case the conspiracy that you say Steyn claims exists does exist or (b) saying they occur cannot imply that a conspiracy exists. (I think the latter.)
Uhmm… “climate of fear” sounds like there are people who are afraid of something. It says nothing one way or the other about the existence of a conspiracy.
No. Steyn thinks they were a joke. But that’s not evidence that he is accusing someone of being involved in a “conspiracy”. Sorry, but investigations being a joke can occur with no “conspiracy”. People can be incompetent. They can be blind. They can be individually self-serving.
Take him at his word? He hasn’t said there is a criminal or immoral conspiracy going on. So when taking him at his word, it might be wise to actually limit your interpretations to things he said rather than the extra stuff you are reading in.
Defending him? I’m not defending him. If you accused him of being a demagogue– ok. If you acused him of overblown language, and so on-ok. You’d be right. But you are accusing him being a conspiracy theorist– but even you can’t describe the “conspiracy theory” you think he advances. And I don’t mean you can’t describe a sane one. I mean you can’t explain the theory based on words he actually wrote. You’re just someone believing there is some “conspiracy theory” that one could hear if their ears were tuned to “dog whistle” at a frequency only Boris can hear!
I have described it many times. Climate mullahs won’t let anyone get tenure or funding if they cross Michael Mann even though almost all scientists think Michael Mann is a fraud. It’s not my fault that Steyn is a huge idiot and believes this huge idiotic conspiracy.
I know, it isn’t a REALLY conspiracy because somethingsomething. I know you have your own invented criteria for what constitutes a “conspiracy theory.” I think that’s cute and all, but I reject your criteria because they don’t match up with any actual examples of conspiracy theories. Nice try, though.
Gosh Boris. Do you never step back and read what you write with fresh eyes. So now, Steyn is both a huge idiot because you think he believes nonesense and a conspiracy theorist who believes in nonesensical conspiracy theories.
It must be nice to have an unshakeable conviction that your speculations about what other people believe must be correct in defiance of all evidence to the contrary. Almost like a religious faith you’ve got going on there.
Boris
The problem is Steyn didn’t say “Climate mullahs won’t let anyone get tenure or funding if they cross Michael Mann”. He did not ascribe the action of not letting people get tenure to climate mullahs.
It’s not my fault that you keep ascribing things Steyn did not say to Steyn. And you can’t put those words in Steyn’s mouth or pen by repeating your claim he wrote or said them. Moreover, if he had written or said them you could quote him, then we could read his words and see he said that. But he didn’t.
This is very simple Boris.
OK, rather late with this but needs to be asked:
From Mosher quoting Eli ““its just the internet—
I wonder if Eli sent Mann a quick note with this quote? Steyn et. al. were only using the internet after all.
Re: Boris (May 16 11:24),
Yet more irony! Of course you do. That’s all you’ve done on this thread with Steyn’s words. Why should you stop with him.
You think I need to twist words to make you or Steyn look stupid?
Am I still a bigot for mentioning sandwiches or not? I’ll assume you were serious in you absolutely moronic smear unless you tell me explicitly otherwise.
Boris
You haven’t made Steyn of DeWitt look stupid. But you’ve tried to twist Steyn’s words to advance the claim that Steyn is a conspiracy theorist. This doesn’t make Steyn look stupid because we can all read Steyn’s words and see he didn’t write what you claim he wrote.
Boris,
Always comes back to this in the end with you, doesn’t it. Do you think this is the actual reason behind the ridiculous arguments you’ve been posting about conspiracy here? Not rhetorical, I’m genuinely curious what you think.
I’m generally curious if people around here think that scientists are denied funding and tenure if they cross Mann–Steyn’s theory. Disingenuous redefinitions aside, I’m still interested.
I take that as my answer? In that case, thanks.
Regarding your question, I’m not an academic, I don’t have the first durned clue. [Edit: got my Bachelor of Science 20 years ago, that was the end of my involvement with academia. Mostly.]
Boris,
I don’t think crossing Mann alone would be sufficient to cause a scientist to be denied tenure or funding.
I do think pissing off many important people– which could happen if one were too vocal in criticizing senior people in your field could significantly harm a career, potentially making it difficult to get funding and ultimately preventing tenure as a result of not getting funding, having a hard time getting people to collaborate, and finding it hard to publish. That means in climate there are some actions that could simultaneously “cross Mann” and also indirectly result in “not getting funding” and ultimately “not getting tenure”. How strong the potential is in climate, and how tightly coupled to “pissing off Mann”? Dunno.
And I do think that awareness of the latter could potentially inhibit people from expressing strong opinions about Mann– particular as they have little reason to dive into conversations and can just be quiet on these issues and stick to their work. Whether it actually is affecting anyone’s willingness to speak out…. dunno. I don’t think Steyn knows either– but he claims to know. (But this claim is not the same as a claim that a conspiracy exists.)
I also think my definition of “conspiracy” is correct and I can’t even begin to imagine what yours is and you haven’t shown my definition incorrect. You’ve just whined about it.
Boris,
You could give Humpty-Dumpty a run for his money on linguistic practices. Words mean only what you want them to mean, whether your own or someone else’s. And yes, I believe that you still don’t understand what seem to me to be the obvious implications of your sandwich/MRI comment, especially in the context of the rest of the discussion in that thread.
Yeah, I have no idea what your “implications” are. I think that giving the poor in Africa solar power is awesome. I have no problem raising taxes to do it either. I also think giving them food and medicine is pretty cool–maybe even cooler than giving them solar. But somehow I’m a bigot. And you’re a complete douchebag.
“o,n!biipawcsipuibhhhhhhhikybtyky,f….”
You ok there Boris?