In this podcast, Professor Michael Mann finally takes the witness box after years of delay. The episode covers Mark Steyn's combative pushback against Mann's lawyer, questions about Steyn's educational qualifications, Mann's claim of reputation damage, defense of the 'hide the decline' email, and the controversy surrounding Mann's remarks and blacklisting of scientists.
The podcast highlights the questioning of Mark Stein by Michael Mann's lawyer during the defamation trial.
The importance of the legal costs recouping issue is emphasized, showcasing the contrast in legal practices across different countries.
The podcast explores the complexities of climate data analysis methods and the challenges involved in accurately depicting historical temperature trends.
Deep dives
The defamation trial of writer Mark Stein and climate scientist Michael Mann
This podcast episode covers the ongoing defamation trial of writer and broadcaster Mark Stein, who has been sued for defamation by climate scientist Michael Mann. The trial centers around Stein's claims that Mann's famous hockey stick graph is a fraud and the investigation into Mann's scientific malfeasance at Penn State University was also a fraud. The podcast provides reenactments of key exchanges from the trial, including discussions of a fire alarm interruption, legal points, and the testimony of both parties. The main ideas highlighted include the questioning of Stein by Mann's lawyer, the importance of the legal costs recouping issue, and highlights from Stein's responses and arguments regarding the hockey stick graph and the Penn State investigation.
Stein's legal costs and the comparison to the British system
A notable point in the podcast is the discussion around Mark Stein's legal costs and the contrast to the British legal system. It is highlighted that if Stein is successful in the case, he will not get his legal costs recouped, which diverges from the British system and most common law jurisdictions. This is presented as a significant aspect of the case, highlighting the potential consequences for Stein and the difference in legal practices across different countries.
Mark Stein and his background as a musician
The podcast episode touches on Mark Stein's background as a 41 recording artist. Stein's Christmas album and his ranking higher than the Jonas Brothers in the charts are mentioned. This detail offers insights into Stein's diverse career and personal interests beyond his involvement in the trial.
The significance of the N-letter discussion and divergence problem
A segment of the podcast focuses on the N-letter discussion, particularly related to the hockey stick graph and the divergence problem. It is explained that the N-letter represents various acronyms associated with reports and studies related to climate change. The podcast explores the issues surrounding the divergence problem, where tree ring data stops correlating to temperature records after 1960. This discussion sheds light on the complexity of climate data analysis methods and challenges faced in accurately depicting historical temperature trends.
Michael Mann's defense and the use of language and analogies
The podcast covers Michael Mann's defense of his actions and statements throughout the trial, including his use of language and analogies. Mann explains the use of symbols such as dollar signs and exclamation marks in his emails, stating they were intended to bypass spam filters. The podcast also delves into Mann's explanations for terms like blacklisting and his analogy between Stephen McIntyre's statistical errors and white supremacist misuse of statistics. These explanations offer insights into Mann's perspective and how he seeks to clarify his intentions and language use during the trial.
Finally, after 12 years of litigation and delay, Professor Michael Mann goes into the witness box.
Is he entitled to millions of dollars in damages for two short articles written over a decade ago?
In a packed episode, you’ll also hear writer and broadcaster, Mark Steyn, in combative form, pushing back against Michael Mann's lawyer. You’ll hear Steyn explain why he believes Mann benefited from a corrupt Penn State “phony investigation“. And you’ll hear questions about Mark Steyn’s educational qualifications, and if he really is “Doctor Dropout.”
Then Michael Mann gets to present his case to the jury. You’ll hear him claim that his reputation was damaged by the comparison of Penn State’s investigation into him with the investigation into Jerry Sandusky. Listen to Mann’s under-oath defense of the infamous “hide the decline” email from the ClimateGate dump. And Mann is questioned about describing an academic who questioned his statistics as “a white supremacist.”
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
