In some recent posts, I’ve observed that Carvin made a couple of astonishing gaffes in his oral argument. In today’s post, I’ll comment on the worst one. First, I’ll report the exchange without context. I presume that 99.99% of Climate Audit readers will spot the gaffe immediately. Read and react to Carvin’s words before reading my comments below the fold, where I’ll give my take on Carvin’s goof.
I have an audio copy of the oral argument in Mann v Steyn, which I’ve posted up (see link at the end of this post). One of things often under-estimated by those readers (especially at WUWT) who are bloodthirsty for litigation as a means of settling scores is that it’s not easy for litigation lawyers to fully assimilate a complicated history. In the oral argument of the anti-SLAPP motion, both the lawyers and judges seem too often to be playing blind man’s bluff with the facts, making a decision both unpredictable and probably somewhat random.
