In this podcast, the podcasters discuss the dramatic day in court as Mark Steyn and his co-defendant's lawyers seek to dismiss the case against Michael Mann. The lack of evidence and failure to prove damages or injury cast doubt on Mann's case. The episode also features an expert describing how Mann manipulated data for his hockey stick. The judge's decision on whether to dismiss the case is awaited.
The defense claims that the omission of the allegedly offensive articles could potentially collapse the case against Professor Michael Mann.
The defense argues that Professor Michael Mann has not been able to prove damages in his defamation case.
Dr. Richard Weiner's testimony raises doubts about the reliability of Mann's hockey stick graph and its impact on climate change policies.
Deep dives
The importance of presenting evidence in court
In the podcast episode, the defense lawyers for writer Mark Stein and writer Rand Simberg claim that climate scientist Professor Michael Mann's lawyers failed to enter the original allegedly offensive articles into evidence. This omission becomes a significant issue as it could potentially collapse the case, as the jury did not have access to the original articles. The judge expressed surprise and agreed that this was a serious problem, leading to uncertainty about how the case would proceed.
Challenges in proving damages in the defamation case
The defense lawyers argue that Professor Michael Mann has not been able to prove damages in his defamation case. They highlight that he admitted in his case that he could not distinguish harms caused by other defamatory statements targeting him from the statements made by Stein and Simberg. The defense also questions the evidence presented about the alleged decline in Mann's grants, stating that there is no clear connection between the defamatory statements and the decrease in grants. They argue that the evidential basis for the claims of actual injury is weak and speculative.
Expert witness challenges statistical analyses and uncertainties
Dr. Abraham Weiner, a professor of statistics at the Wharton School of Business, testifies as an expert witness for the defense. He raises concerns about how statistical analyses can be misused and highlights the importance of considering uncertainties. Using examples like the 2016 US presidential election and a recent football game, Dr. Weiner shows how estimation of outcomes and decision-making based on data can be flawed or uncertain. He emphasizes the need to properly account for uncertainties and cautions against relying solely on point estimates in statistical analysis.
John Abraham's Testimony on Reputational Harm
John Abraham, a professor at the University of Minnesota, testified as an expert witness and stated that the climate-gate scandal damaged Michael Mann's reputation. He explained that the publication of two articles after Mann was cleared by investigations made him hesitant to include Mann as a co-author on a paper due to concerns about others' perception. Abraham's testimony highlighted the potential reputational harm caused by the climate-gate scandal, which is a key point in Mann's case.
Dr. Richard Weiner's Critique of Mann's Hockey Stick
Dr. Richard Weiner, a statistician, testified that Mann's hockey stick graph was manipulative and misleading. Weiner explained the complexity of reconstructing historic temperatures using proxy data and highlighted the importance of proper statistical analysis. He raised doubts about the reliability of the hockey stick graph and its impact on climate change policies. Weiner's testimony provided a critical evaluation of Mann's research methods and the implications of his findings.
Has Michael Mann’s case collapsed? Is the trial over before the defendants even present a witness? It was a drama-filled day in court as Mark Steyn and his co-defendant’s lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the case. They claimed, and the judge appeared to agree, that Mann and his lawyers had failed to submit the allegedly defamatory articles to the jury. Was the case about to collapse on a technicality?
The judge also heard that Mann had failed to prove that the articles were damaging to his reputation, or even that he had suffered any injury. Apart from a mean stare in a supermarket, does Michael Mann have any proof he was damaged by the Steyn and Simberg articles? Or was he damaged by his “ClimateGate” emails, as his own witness accidentally blurted out? And did Mann’s lawyers present a false document to the jury?
And then you can hear one of America’s foremost data experts describe how Mann “manipulated” the figures to get a Hockey Stick
We await the judge's decision on whether to dismiss the case before it even gets to the jury.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
