In this explosive episode, the DC defamation trial of Mark Stein continues with devastating developments for Michael Mann. The judge criticizes Mann's case as disjointed and questions the purpose of witnesses. Dr. Judith Curry describes the devastation of her professional life due to Mann's smearing. Evidence suggests a whitewash of Mann's scientific misconduct investigation, and Steve McIntyre's enduring criticism of the hockey stick graph is highlighted. Don't miss this explosive testimony!
The judge criticized Mann's case presentation and the relevance of some witnesses.
Dr. Curry highlighted the detrimental impact of defamation and smears on her career and emotional well-being.
McIntyre's work revealed concerns about the lack of due diligence and transparency in the peer review process.
Deep dives
The DC defamation trial of Mark Stein and Professor Michael Mann
This podcast episode covers the ongoing trial between writer Mark Stein and climate scientist Professor Michael Mann. Stein is being sued for defamation after calling Mann's hockey stick graph a fraud. The trial has gained increased interest and has seen intense scrutiny both in and outside of the courtroom. The judge imposed tight time limits, leading to a sudden end to the trial. The judge also criticized Mann's case presentation and the relevance of some witnesses. However, there are still pending motions to be ruled on, including a motion to dismiss and one related to erroneous figures produced by Mann's team.
Testimony of Dr. Judith Curry and her concerns on climate science culture
Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist, testified about the climate change debate becoming contentious and nasty. She expressed her concerns about the reputation of climate science and the loss of public trust, particularly after the release of climate gate emails in 2009. She emphasized the importance of transparency, honest discussions about uncertainty, and respectful engagement with different viewpoints. Dr. Curry also shared the detrimental impact of the defamation and smears she faced from Mann, highlighting the effect on her career and emotional well-being.
Steve McIntyre's role in challenging the hockey stick graph
Steve McIntyre, a statistician, shared his experience challenging Mann's hockey stick graph. McIntyre discovered that the underlying data for the graph was not easily accessible, which raised concerns about the lack of due diligence in the peer review process. McIntyre's work gained prominence, and he became actively involved in the climate change debate and contributed to scientific discussions and conferences. He discussed the importance of open data and the need for rigorous analysis in climate science.
Allegations of interference in the inquiry committee's report
Details emerged regarding potential interference in the inquiry committee's report on Mann's work. It was revealed that the president of Penn State University, Graham Spanier, had input in the report and directed the committee towards lesser consequences for Mann's alleged misconduct. This raised questions about the independence of the committee's investigation and the influence of university administration. The testimony highlighted concerns about the integrity of the process and potential bias towards protecting Mann's reputation.
Emotional impact and personal attacks
The emotional impact of the trial was emphasized, particularly regarding the personal attacks and smears faced by McIntyre and Curry. McIntyre addressed false accusations of being a white supremacist, highlighting his diverse family background, while Curry discussed the devastating effect of being labelled a climate misinformer and the impact on her career and reputation. The trial highlighted the negative tone and lack of civility in the climate science debate, with instances of personal attacks and attempts to discredit opposing viewpoints.
As this case progressed, we believed Michael Mann’s case was getting weaker and weaker. But we never thought the judge would agree.
It’s a devastating development for Michael Mann and his lawyers. Hear Judge Irving describe their case as “disjointed,” and wondered aloud just what the purpose of two of their witnesses was.
It kept getting worse for Mann. Listen to Dr. Judith Curry describe how his private and public smearing of her reputation devastated her professional life. We’ll also hear convincing evidence that the Penn State investigation into Mann’s scientific misconduct was indeed a whitewash, and from researcher Steve McIntyre, who’s behind some of the most enduring criticism of the hockey stick graph.
You won’t want to miss this explosive testimony.
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