This may be good prep for my upcoming trial of Mann’s defamation suit against me.
10 thoughts on “Energy Talking Points”
Why would any of that be relevant? I thought he was suing you for comparing him to a child molester. What do the details of climate disputes have to do with that?
It may or may not be; it depends on plaintiff tactics. He will want to paint me as a “climate denier” in front of a DC jury. The Sandusky comparison is a sensational aspect of it, but the real issue is that I accused him of academic misconduct, that wasn’t properly investigated, and since he has to show actual malice (a reckless disregard for the truth) he will want to convince the jury that I was attacking him over climate science.
There is this: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976
Takeaway conclusion “The compilation of land- and sea-surface LiG uncertainty yield a 1900–2010 global air-temperature record anomaly of 0.86 ± 1.92 °C (2σ), which renders impossible any conclusion regarding the rate or magnitude of climate warming since 1850 or earlier.”
I could see your lawyer drawing a few analogies for the jury, perhaps saying “Similar to how the NIH and CDC did not at all investigate the possibility that Covid leaked from the Wuhan lab, and indeed did all they could to cover it up and dismiss the idea as a conspiracy theory. A whitewash is a whitewash, and we all sense when one doesn’t pass the smell test.”
Blacks in DC had a very low vaccination rate, and the Covid nonsense might resonate with some of them on the jury.
I don’t know what the racial composition of the jury will be. It could be a lot of Karens.
Rand, hope you can use some of the copious material out there to defend yourself should Mann try to turn your heresy trial into a treatise on doctrinal presuppositions in climatology:
Suggest you seek to put into evidence this paper by Ross McKitrick.
A DC jury? Good luck….
“Upcoming” ? So, like, before the end of THIS decade?
Why would any of that be relevant? I thought he was suing you for comparing him to a child molester. What do the details of climate disputes have to do with that?
It may or may not be; it depends on plaintiff tactics. He will want to paint me as a “climate denier” in front of a DC jury. The Sandusky comparison is a sensational aspect of it, but the real issue is that I accused him of academic misconduct, that wasn’t properly investigated, and since he has to show actual malice (a reckless disregard for the truth) he will want to convince the jury that I was attacking him over climate science.
There is this:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/13/5976
Takeaway conclusion “The compilation of land- and sea-surface LiG uncertainty yield a 1900–2010 global air-temperature record anomaly of 0.86 ± 1.92 °C (2σ), which renders impossible any conclusion regarding the rate or magnitude of climate warming since 1850 or earlier.”
I could see your lawyer drawing a few analogies for the jury, perhaps saying “Similar to how the NIH and CDC did not at all investigate the possibility that Covid leaked from the Wuhan lab, and indeed did all they could to cover it up and dismiss the idea as a conspiracy theory. A whitewash is a whitewash, and we all sense when one doesn’t pass the smell test.”
Blacks in DC had a very low vaccination rate, and the Covid nonsense might resonate with some of them on the jury.
I don’t know what the racial composition of the jury will be. It could be a lot of Karens.
Rand, hope you can use some of the copious material out there to defend yourself should Mann try to turn your heresy trial into a treatise on doctrinal presuppositions in climatology:
Suggest you seek to put into evidence this paper by Ross McKitrick.
A DC jury? Good luck….
“Upcoming” ? So, like, before the end of THIS decade?
October 30th.
Trick or Treat?
Amazing.