Mark Steyn questions Michael Mann in a long-awaited trial. Topics include Climategate leaks, the hockey stick graph, mean stares at supermarkets, and allegations of perjury. They discuss temperature records, tree rings, and Mann's crude calculations. The podcast gets heated with accusations of perjury and defamation, with a memorable incident at a supermarket. They also explore perception, indoor-outdoor cats, and the impact of the Sandusky scandal on grant funding. The debate on the accuracy of the hockey stick graph and a desire to ruin the other person end the episode on a dramatic note.
Concerns arise about Michael Mann's credibility and the accuracy of his statements due to evidence of withholding information about defamation instances in his legal filings.
Questions are raised about Mann's judgment and ethical considerations for continuing to thank Graham Spanier, a convicted child endagerment offender, in the acknowledgments of his books.
Doubts are raised about the credibility of the hockey stick graph and Mann's methodology due to issues with the accuracy and inconsistency of tree ring data and thermometer data.
Deep dives
Man's Allegations of Perjury
During the trial, Victoria Weatherford accused Michael Mann of committing perjury in one of his legal filings. She presented evidence that Mann did not fully disclose other instances of defamation in his responses to questions. This raised concerns about the credibility of Mann's claims and the accuracy of his statements.
Controversial Connections to Graham Spanier
Mark Stein raised questions about Mann's association with Graham Spanier, the former president of Penn State. Despite Spanier's indictment, conviction, and imprisonment for child endangerment in relation to the Jerry Sandusky scandal, Mann continued to thank him in the acknowledgments of his books. This raised concerns about Mann's judgment and ethical considerations.
Accuracy of the Hockey Stick and Proxy Records
Stein and Mann debated the accuracy of the hockey stick graph and the use of proxy records, such as tree rings and thermometer data. Stein highlighted the issues with the accuracy and inconsistency of tree ring data and questioned its reliability in tracking temperature fluctuations. This discussion raised doubts about the credibility of the hockey stick graph and Mann's methodology.
Motive behind the lawsuit and destroying individuals
During the podcast episode, it is revealed that one possible motive behind the lawsuit is Michael Mann's desire to destroy individuals who challenge him, such as Judith Curry. Mark Steyn points out how Mann's language and attitude towards others is highly disrespectful and goes beyond normal disagreements. There is a strong suggestion that Mann engages in lawfare against conservatives and seeks to destroy conservative outlets like the National Review. The evidence from Mann's emails also indicates his intent to ruin National Review, which he views as having much more to lose. This suggests a political motive behind the lawsuit.
Lack of evidence and credibility in the case
The podcast highlights the lack of credible evidence presented by Michael Mann to support his claims of defamation. Stein questions the credibility of Mann's anecdotal evidence, such as a supermarket incident where Mann claims to have received a mean look. The lack of specific details and inability to provide witnesses raises doubts about the veracity of Mann's claims. Additionally, the discussion highlights the absence of witnesses from grant foundations or other individuals who could corroborate Mann's allegations. This further weakens Mann's case and calls into question the validity of his claims.
Finally, the day Mark Steyn has been waiting for, for 12 years has arrived. Michael Mann is in the witness box and must answer questions from the person he has tried to destroy for over a decade.
Now you will get to hear the true story of the Climategate leaks, the hockey stick graph, world temperature records, and mean stares at supermarkets. (It happened in aisle nine, by the way).
On today’s episode, you’ll hear how Mann’s email accusing a fellow scientist of sleeping her way to a PhD actually proves he’s a Me Too supporter. Then we travel from the temperature records of 17th century England to the global tree rings of 1960. You’ll also hear, Mann admit he didn’t consult a statistician in constructing the hockey stick, and that his original calculations were “crude.” And in a dramatic opening, you'll hear allegations that Michale Mann perjured himself in court and his legal filings.
Listen as the judge is forced to intervene between Mann and Steyn as tempers – and the room gets very, very heated.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode