Category Archives: Media Criticism

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Weird

On The Mannsuits

81 Comments

Want to split a gut? Read this insane comment over at Judy Curry’s place:

Mann’s strategic rational for the parallel lawsuit is evident, and is based upon the observation CEI and NR published startlingly similar, startlingly abusive, startling ill-judged editorials.

——————-

Mann’s Objective Publicly expose the command-and-control structure of climate-change denialism.

Mann’s Strategy Call witnesses to testify, under oath, regarding the parallel origins of their libelous assertions.

Mann’s Tactics Offer each of CEI and NR a plea-bargain, providing each “peaches” upon the other, regarding denialist marching-orders and astro-turfing operations.

Mann’s Guidance The Code of Omertà is robust at the institutional level of climate-change denialism, yet notoriously flimsy at the individual level. To exploit this weak point, Mann’s legal team will therefore focus legal pressure upon the individuals under whose name the libels were published. In particular, what services has CEI’s staff of 40 provided to denialist bloggers, and to sister institutions such as Heartland?

——————-

Predictions (1) CEI and NR will do all they can to ensure that individuals named in Mann’s suit do not testify under oath … or if they do, that their testimonies are well-rehearsed and carefully coordinated. (2) Conversely, Mann’s team will do all they can to exert pressure upon individual witnesses, in particular by calling multiple witnesses to the stand, and by deposing CEI and NR employees in separate discovery processes.

Question What portion of climate-change denialist prose, nominally originating from private citizens, in fact originates from CEI professional operatives?

I can’t really comment, other than to wonder if Mann himself believes lunacy like this?

Business, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

The Other Shoe Drops

48 Comments

A press release from CEI:

Penn State Climate Scientist Michael Mann Demands Apology From CEI

CEI Refuses to Retract Commentary

Washington, D.C., August 24, 2012 – The Competitive Enterprise Institute received a letter on August 21 from an attorney representing Penn State University Professor Michael E. Mann that demands that CEI retract and apologize for a post on CEI’s blog, Openmarket.org, written by CEI adjunct scholar Rand Simberg. The letter also threatens that they “intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann.”

“The Other Scandal in Unhappy Valley,” the July 13, 2012 blog post at issue, criticized Professor Mann, a climate scientist who is recent years has become a leading advocate in the public debate for global warming alarmism. Mann was the lead author of research that fabricated the infamous hockey stick temperature graph. The hockey stick was featured in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but was dropped in its Fourth Assessment Report (2007). E-mails from and to Professor Mann featured prominently in what became known as the Climategate scandal.

In response to the letter from Mann’s attorney, CEI offered the following statements.

Statement by CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:

This week CEI received a letter from Michael Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams of Cozen O’Connor, demanding that CEI fully retract and apologize for a July 13th OpenMarket blog post concerning Mann’s work. Shortly after that post was published in mid-July, CEI removed two sentences that it regarded as inappropriate. However, we view the post as a valid commentary on Michael Mann’s research. We reject the claim that this research was closely examined, let alone exonerated, by any of the proceedings listed in Mr. Williams’s letter.

National Review, which earlier got a similar letter from Mann’s attorney, has expertly summed up the matter in a response by the editor and the publication’s attorney.

And regardless of how one views Mann’s work, his threatened lawsuit is directly contrary to First Amendment law regarding public debate over controversial issues. Michael Mann may believe we face a global warming threat, but his actions represent an unfounded attempt to freeze discussion of his views.

In short, we’re not retracting the piece, and we’re not apologizing for it.

Statement by Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment:

Penn State Professor Michael Mann’s lawyer claims that nine investigations of academic fraud have all exonerated Professor Mann. Most of these investigations did not examine Professor Mann’s conduct or even mention him, and Penn State University’s investigation was typical of that institution’s unfortunate tendencies.

The fact that Professor Mann’s hockey stick research is still taken seriously in the public debate is an indication that people haven’t read the Wegman Report to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the National Research Council’s report, or the analysis of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

Professor Mann’s political advocacy is no more reliable than his scientific research. His recent book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, repeats numerous factual errors, some of them about CEI.

> View the Michael Mann attorney letter.pdf

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org. Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

As this is now a legal matter directly involving me, I will have no further comment.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

An Initial Response To Mann’s Lawyer

74 Comments

From Mark Morano, over at Climate Depot:

Mann’s lawyer John B. Williams: “…Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies”

Climate Depot Response: Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature. The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (used to be referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that the “Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”

In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”

Climate Depot has assembled a small sampling of peer-reviewed studies, data and analyses that refute Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature claims of unprecedented 20th century warmth.

That’s just a small sample. Mann will really regret this if he continues to move forward, but his ego may force him to regardless. It is the ultimate in hubris.

[Update a few minutes later]

And here is a report from an alternate universe, in which Mann is not going to get shredded on the stand:

The legal dismemberment of the Denial machine has begun. In a conversation thursday with a very senior scientist, I was updated on a number of actions slowly encircling the Denial industry. Think, – Tobacco lawsuits on stereo steroids, with extra secret sauce.

The “Denial industry.” A “very senior scientist.”

Top. Men.

Hilarious.

[Update a few more minutes later]

Stacy McCain wants in on the hot, hot lawsuit action.

[Another update]

Litigator Maxwell Kennerly thinks that Mann has a case. I think he’s dreaming.

What all of the Mann defenders ignore are the numerous accusations against his hockey stick and methods from within the “climate science” community itself, much of which views him as a preening embarrassment. And when the emails are exposed in court, “fraud” is likely to be one of the kinder terms that will be seen as applicable to him. The warm mongers are going to regret embracing him — it was unnecessary to do so in order to defend their “science,” and seems to have been done largely for emotional, but not rational reasons (it brings to mind the Democrats’ knee-jerk defense of Bill Clinton for his multiple felonies, simply because he was under attack by their perceived enemy).

And in doing so, they will end up doing great damage to their cause.

[Update a while later]

Link to Peter Sinclair’s lunacy was broken. Fixed now.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

About That Lawsuit, Michael Mann

17 Comments

Get lost:

Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.

If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.

And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.

My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.

He could use a lot of education on that score. As I said at the time, this was nothing but bluster to try to get a cheap apology.

[Update a few minutes later]

Mark Steyn: Stick it where the global warming won’t shine.

[One more update before bed]

I have to say that it’s unusual (fortunately) for me to be mentioned in a response to a libel lawsuit. I still hope he moves forward, but if he does, he’s even more of a fool than he’s already demonstrated himself to be. I don’t think his tobacco lawyer had any idea what he was getting himself into when he sent that letter on Mann’s “behalf,” and he’s likely advising him to give it up at this point.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The “New Normal”

14 Comments

Jimmie Pethokoukis isn’t buying it:

…the president’s a recent convert to this religion of low expectations. He certainly didn’t buy it when he took office. Back then, he predicted a quick and powerful economic rebound — if only lawmakers implemented his policies, such as the $800 billion stimulus. Which Congress, then with strong Democratic majorities, quickly did.

In 2009, for instance, the White House said the economy would be growing at a brisk 4.3 percent annual clip this year, with unemployment down to 5.6 percent. Indeed, Obama’s top economists predicted we’d be smack in the middle of a fat streak of high-growth years: 4.3 percent in 2011, followed by 4.3 percent growth in 2012 and 2013, too. And 2014? 4 percent growth.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton would have nothing on Obama, these predictions suggested. Back then, Team Obama scoffed at the dismal New Normal faith.

Yet we’re still waiting on the boom that they promised. Now they’re evangelizing for “the New Normal” — and hoping enough voters buy the excuse.

It’s almost as though they don’t know WTF they’re doing.