Judith Curry has the goods on this latest bout of junk science:
My main conclusion from reading the report is this: the phrase ‘climate change’ is now officially meaningless. The report effectively implies that there is no climate change other than what is caused by humans, and that extreme weather events are equivalent to climate change. Any increase in adverse impacts from extreme weather events or sea level rise is caused by humans. Possible scenarios of future climate change depend only on emissions scenarios that are translated into warming by climate models that produce far more warming than has recently been observed.
The way the DC “legislature” wrote the Anti-SLAPP law it’s unclear whether a denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is appealable. So my co-defendants would like the Court of Appeals to rule on the question. They could have ruled on it way back last autumn when the denial of the motion to dismiss the original complaint was appealed, but by then Michael E Mann, whose original complaint was as poorly constructed as his hockey stick, had filed his amended complaint, so the Court of Appeals ruled that it was moot. If you’re wondering what “it” is in that last clause, “it” is any combination of: a) the original complaint; b) the original motion to dismiss the original complaint; c) the original denial of the original motion to dismiss the original complaint; d) the original appeal of the original denial of the original motion to dismiss the original complaint; e) the original appeal of whether the original appeal of the original denial of the original motion to dismiss the original complaint is appealable; or f) a gluten-free chia-seed bagel three days past its sell-by date left under the judges’ desk.
It’s not really a new thing, but this is the latest indication that most universities aren’t. They clearly want a diversity in everything except opinion.