Ep. 4 | Michael Mann's Vomit: Excuse Me, While I Puke
Jan 23, 2024
auto_awesome
Mark Steyn takes the stand in a defamation trial against climate scientist Michael Mann. Mann's false claim of winning a Nobel prize is discussed, as well as the 'Climate Gate' leaks and the refusal to disclose the whistleblower's name. The chapter also covers a reenactment of questioning and an email exchange revealing concerns about reputation damage. The defamation case between Mann and Tim Ball is mentioned, along with a discussion on honorary degrees and the fallibility of science.
The podcast provides insights into the defamation trial between Mark Steyn and Michael Mann, highlighting Mann's claim to a Nobel Prize and his reputation for being pugnacious.
The importance of skepticism and the fallibility of scientific consensus are discussed, emphasizing the need for ongoing scientific inquiry and a critical approach to interpreting research.
The impact of defamation lawsuits on climate change discourse is explored, including the prolonged legal battle against Michael Mann and the tragic consequences faced by Tim Ball.
Deep dives
Summary of Podcast Episode: Climate Change on Trial - Day Four
On the fourth day of the Climate Change on Trial podcast, the focus was on the defamation trial against writer Mark Stein and his comments about climate scientist Michael Mann. Stein questioned Mann in court, highlighting Mann's claim to a Nobel Prize and his reputation for being pugnacious. The podcast also featured exchanges between counsel and witnesses, including Dr. Raymond Bradley, a co-author of the hockey stick graph, and Dr. Naomi Oreskes, a science historian. The episode provided insights into the testimonies, peer review process, and the reliability of scientific evidence.
Controversial Emails and Highlighting Mann's Reputation
During the trial, controversial emails were discussed, including one where Dr. Raymond Bradley referred to Michael Mann as 'vomit.' Counsel emphasized Mann's reputation and actions, highlighting instances where Mann had been pugnacious and litigious. The episode also touched on Mann's lawsuit against Canadian scientist Tim Ball, who faced significant financial tolls. The witness, Dr. Naomi Oreskes, offered insights into the peer review process and the importance of trusting scientific research.
Science Historian's Testimony and Honorary Degrees
Dr. Naomi Oreskes, a scientist and close friend of Michael Mann, provided testimony focusing on the general aspects of the scientific method and her own qualifications. She discussed her extensive lecture circuit, honorary degrees, and the impact of her work. However, her testimony was criticized for lacking substance and for the dismissive attitude towards scientific controversy and dissenting views. Her focus on personal achievements overshadowed substantive discussion.
Challenges to Settled Science and Historical Accuracy
The episode also delved into challenges against settled science, highlighting historical cases like thalidomide and eugenics. The importance of skepticism and the potential fallibility of scientific consensus were underscored. Examples like ulcers and shifting dietary guidelines demonstrate that scientific understanding can evolve over time. The discussion emphasized the need for ongoing scientific inquiry and a critical approach to the interpretation of scientific research.
The Role of Defamation and Decades-Long Legal Battles
The episode shed light on the impact of defamation lawsuits and the length of legal battles surrounding climate change discourse. It touched on the prolonged legal battle against Michael Mann, highlighting his lawsuit against Tim Ball and the tragic consequences faced by Ball. The episode also noted Mark Stein's representation of himself and the wheelchair-bound nature of his current state, alluding to potential attempts to hinder or delay the trial.
Finally after 12 years of litigation and delays, defendant Mark Steyn takes the stand in the most important free speech trial in over half a century. Steyn is being sued by climate scientist and activist Michael Mann for criticizing his hockey stick graph and the investigation into Mann’s alleged scientific malfeasance.
Now Mann has a chance to question Steyn. But has he chosen the wrong opponent? Hear Michael Mann’s explanation of why he falsely claimed to have won a Nobel prize. And hear Mark Steyn’s response. Listen to the incredible details about Michael Mann's previous lawsuits and how they ended in tragedy. And hear Mark Steyn refuse to reveal the name of a journalistic source who leaked the “Climate Gate” emails revealing the alleged rot at the heart of climate science.
This is a true courtroom drama with genuine twists and turns. The evidence takes you on a journey from the nude beaches of St Tropez, France to the photocopying room in the headquarters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Enjoy!
And don't forget to leave a rating and review.
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