Talk-Polywell.org

Just so folks are aware, Michael Mann, the primary target of Willard "Tony" Watts' vicious smear campaign generally referred to as "Climategate" has filed suit for defamation. The attempt of Watts' rich backers to pretend the lawsuit should be dismissed has been denied by the judge, and the parties have proceeded to the discovery phase.

Most observers expect that Watts' financial supporters, the Heartland Institute, itself a party to the suit, will attempt to settle and pay Mann off, and that Mann will refuse and insist on the damage to his scientific reputation and a complete restitution, both public statement and financial compensation. It's very likely he'll win; he's scientifically correct. Furthermore, he is asking for restitution of his legal costs for defending himself against five investigations spawned by the false accusations, and given that all five found him blameless and in fact abused, Watts and his supporters are in a very nasty position, having attempted to promote a false accusation of conspiracy against Mann and other prominent climate scientists. They could easily find themselves the targets of many more lawsuits very soon.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013 ... n-lawsuit/

Anybody who pays any attention to this, for instance, reading Watts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=mann+lawsuit
or listening to Mark Steyn on Rush's program knows that this is actually Mann's downfall. Now there are a bunch of people who have been, under the FOI trying to get access to Mann's data records and the information behind the Hockey Stick and been stonewalled by Mann and UVA and PSA. Now the Subpoenas fly and thanks to climategate we know exactly what to look for. Exonerated, far from it. Mann is an idiot who should have kept his mouth shut.

Brag and bounce.

It already hasn't been dismissed. You are in trouble. You've already spent a quarter of a million dollars and now you know you're in for a couple million minimum.

Scientists' reputations aren't like ordinary peoples'.

You are in huge trouble. I hope it costs your retirement to pay for Mann's legal costs defending himself against your slander.

The fun continues:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/07/d ... nting.html
Mann's attorney, a tobacco company rep.

None of the five investigations of Mann ever made it to discovery.

I suppose that's lucky for you; it won't cost the Moon and stars, only your firstborn child.

Jccarlton wrote:The fun continues:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/07/d ... nting.html
Mann's attorney, a tobacco company rep.

Awesome, use their own mouthpieces against them. Maybe the mouthpieces feel a need to purge themselves.

Jccarlton wrote:Anybody who pays any attention to this, for instance, reading Watts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=mann+lawsuit
or listening to Mark Steyn on Rush's program knows that this is actually Mann's downfall. Now there are a bunch of people who have been, under the FOI trying to get access to Mann's data records and the information behind the Hockey Stick and been stonewalled by Mann and UVA and PSA. Now the Subpoenas fly and thanks to climategate we know exactly what to look for. Exonerated, far from it. Mann is an idiot who should have kept his mouth shut.

Fame can be a heady drug for a mid-level bureaucrat, once they've tasted it.

JLawson wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Anybody who pays any attention to this, for instance, reading Watts:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=mann+lawsuit
or listening to Mark Steyn on Rush's program knows that this is actually Mann's downfall. Now there are a bunch of people who have been, under the FOI trying to get access to Mann's data records and the information behind the Hockey Stick and been stonewalled by Mann and UVA and PSA. Now the Subpoenas fly and thanks to climategate we know exactly what to look for. Exonerated, far from it. Mann is an idiot who should have kept his mouth shut.

Fame can be a heady drug for a mid-level bureaucrat, once they've tasted it.

We'll see how much it costs Willard.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013 ... tion-case/

climatesciencewatch.org wrote:"The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits," said a DC Superior Court judge in her latest procedural ruling in the defamation case of Michael Mann v. National Review, et al. "The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that 'actual malice' is present in the [National Review's] conduct."

You guys are in serious, serious trouble. You now have to prove something in court that a thousand witnesses will swear is false. If not ten times that many. And every single one of them has more credentials than you. I'd use a coarse expression but it seems redundant.

The judge just said the case looks like a slam-dunk for Mann, in case anyone had trouble interpreting that.

And it gets worse yet: apparently the Defendants were unwise enough to fallaciously link Mann with Jerry Sandusky, a convicted pedophile. This despicable defamation amounts to intentional infliction of emotional distress, according to the court, and the court also believes this is slam-dunk.

This is going to cost you an enormous amount of money, and even more important, is going to require you to tell the truth about climate or GO TO JAIL for contempt of court.

I'm going to be watching this with the ultimate interest. I intend to be sticking this up climate cranks' noses until the day I die.

Gee, I didn't know he'd also named the CEI. This gets juicier the longer I look into it. His team might link the Kochs and get at some of their money too. This could go a long way. The Ford Foundation even.

I mean, let's be frank: if you make accusations against someone of felonies, and the authorities investigate and not only are they false but malicious, you're likely to get prosecuted for perjury. And believe me, you do not want to be convicted of perjury ever. You don't even want the judge on your defamation case to think you might have committed perjury.

You guys are in incredible trouble.

I wouldn't get out of bed.