After reading the WUWT, I wanted to summarise the my thoughts on Mann’s chances of wining the court case and how I think he’s either lost hold of reality and/or is surrounded by fair weather friends who don’t have his interests at heart.
However, what’s the point? He’s an idiot, an idiot who clearly doesn’t listen to good advice, so what can anything I write do but add to the din that he’s an idiot?
Now there’s yet another article about Mann at Judith Curry‘s – it’s like watching a slow car crash! The only person who’s going to get hurt (as all his fair weather friends turn on him) will be Michael. So, here’s my thoughts from this morning:
Just reading another article of yet another porky from Mann at WUWT and even if I hadn’t carefully checked the work on his hockey stick and convinced myself it was based on using a “trick” to get the data to create a hockey stick, I would by now know that Mann hasn’t a hope of winning.
Mann’s problem is this. His whole case is this:
“I’m a scientists so you can trust me … therefore to suggest I’ve been unscientific is libel”.
And because most lay people would find his science difficult to judge, a jury would likely accept he was a scientist and that the science was right if Mann could find even a few “scientists” to vouch for him. How can they judge the science? So even though Stern can bring in a lot of expects to show Mann’s science isn’t; in practice the jury will tend to ignore what it can’t just and instead look at who supports him.
However, that was a case based “I’m a trustworthy scientist”. But now Mann has been caught lying on his own court submissions numerous times. Lying to a court is something that is easy for the jury to understand and so something they will fix on and use to judge Mann.
So the argument;
“trust me I’m a scientist”
“he isn’t trustworthy … so can’t be a scientist”
and Stern wins the case.
That may be an oversimplification – it may not even go to a jury – but judges are just as human. And in essence, once a jury or judge starts thinking of one side as “economical with the truth”, they are on the slippery slope and will inevitably lose unless they have an exceptionally strong case (and Michael does not).
However, I was also struck by Judith Curry’s comments on the case. And from what she has said, it is clear Mann has been saying very much the same kinds of things about all kinds of other people many who a jury would clearly call “scientists”. Unless I’m very mistaken, there’s no chance of those like Judith being caught lying in the way Mann has. So, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he libels others and expects to get away with it, he cannot himself ask a court to find others have libelled him.
So, in essence, when you boil this case down to the simple facts that would impress upon a jury it is this:
“A person shown to lie even on his own submission to the court, is complaining that someone has treated him in the way he treats other people of undoubtedly better character”.
He hasn’t a chance of winning. So why on earth is Mann so willingly submitting himself to a process which appears to have only one possible outcome? I can only imagine he is surrounded by sycophants and zealots who are so detached from the views of ordinary people outside that they really believe that “being right” (as they must see it) is a justification for all their ills.
In other words, you have a social group who all believes what Mann is doing is “right”, so they cannot entertain the idea that anyone “just” could see it any other way.
So, the big question is this: at what point will Mann realise that all these sycophants around him are delusional and in my view don’t care at all about him personally and therefore when he loses the case, as he surely will, they will turn against him?
And this is the point, I just hope his arrogance at his celebrity status hasn’t so corrupted him that he has driven away all his real friends.