Category Archives: Science And Society
Testing Compensating Nozzles
John Hare has a question.
Totalitarianism And Mass Murder
Want to know how it happens? It starts like this:
“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”
“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”
“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”
Once one is declared an enemy of the people, all becomes possible.
A Very Mannly Christmas
When deception breeds paranoia. I think he really does believe this stuff.
[Evening update]
Michael Mann’s Christmases are now less joyful than at any other time in the last 2,000 years, according to Christmas tree ring data.
[Bumped]
Curbing Gun Violence
…by legalizing drugs.
It will never happen though, because they won’t give up the opportunities for graft.
More On The Mannsuit
This isn’t a new article — it was published at the time the suit was filed in October — but it provides some useful background on one of Friday’s filings.
Climate Skeptics’ Funding
Evidence that they’re not well-funded or well-organized.
I’m still waiting for my check from Big Destroy The Planet.
CEI SLAPPS Back At Professor Mann
Here is the official CEI press release on the motions filed on Friday.
Reducing Violence By The Mentally Ill
Note that most of this is not new federal intrusions, but fixing currently broken federal policy.
The Rebels Strike Back Against The Climate-Change Empire
We’ve filed two motions to dismiss with prejudice Michael Mann’s lawsuit, both under the DC Anti-SLAPP Act, and for failure to state a claim.
The former is a relatively new law whose purpose is precisely to prevent such harassing lawsuits, and strangle them in the cradle before a defendant has to expend considerable resources on a frivolous case. The latter is a blast at his repeated allegations of malice and intention to harm on our part as though those are facts, with no actual facts to support them, and his own filing containing much to contradict. Obviously, I was quite involved with the preparation of both these briefs. As I’ve said all along, he never had much of a case. National Review and Mark Steyn will probably have something up about theirs tomorrow (they were separate filings, because the situations were different, over different postings, though there is also much in common).
Unfortunately, if these dismissals are granted, there will be no “scientific trial of the twenty-first century” over the hockey stick, but it will get the legal issues out of our hair, and we’ll get to go after him for attorney fees, possibly discouraging any future attempts to muzzle the “deniers.”
[Update a while later]
Just to expand on the issues in the second motion, in order to show malice and reckless disregard for the truth on my/our part, he has to show (among other things) that we didn’t really believe what I wrote about his “exoneration.” His logic seems to be:
a) Various investigations have exonerated me (in my not-so-humble opinion).
b) Simberg claims to have read them, and in fact even linked to them, and yet he still claimed that I was not exonerated.
c) Simberg is obviously lying. Who needs more evidence than that?
He doesn’t seem to consider the possibility that, having read the reports on the investigations, our opinions simply differ on whether or not they really exonerated him. Presumably, a judge will be smarter.