Final Briefs filed in Mann libel case

most_interesting_MannBy Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel (reposted from globalwarming.org)

[Yesterday was] the close of briefing in our appeal of Michael Mann’s defamation suit against the Competitive Enterprise Insitute, CEI adjunct Rand Simberg, National Review and Mark Steyn. Some background information and the court filings can be found here.

We’re appealing a lower court’s refusal to dismiss this case under the District of Columbia’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects participants in public debate from being silenced by meritless lawsuits. Groups ranging from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the ACLU to the Cato Institute and the Electronic Frontier Foundation view Mann’s suit as being exactly that—meritless—and they make this clear in the amicus briefs they filed in our support.

One of Mann’s arguments is that his work has been “exonerated” by a number of investigations, including that of EPA. As our reply brief shows, that is simply untrue. But one thing that EPA did examine was Mann’s own claim that the work of certain opposing scientists was a “fraud”. In EPA’s view, “fraud” is an “entirely acceptable and appropriate” term in scientific debate. (CEI Reply Brief at p.11.)

In short, EPA didn’t exonerate Mann, but it may well have exonerated the defendants.

Advertisements

88 thoughts on “Final Briefs filed in Mann libel case

  1. His not ‘nailed down ‘ yet and he may actual want a dismissal, especially one he can sell that makes him ‘the victim’ of a powerful conspiracy. Which his supporters, like all his BS , will lap up without a second thought.

      • @tomtrevor
        Ummm, how exactly does Michael Mann “dismiss” Mark Steyn’s counter suit? Even if Mann drops his suit, Steyn has at least a prima facie case for counter damages based on the money and time he’s spent defending himself so far.

      • If Mann drops his suit, doesn’t Steyn win his by default unless there is an agreement between the two parties for a mutual withdrawal. Based on Steyn’s writings and his avowed objective of ensuring free speech, it is hard for me to see how he would be willing to withdraw his counter-suit even if the offer included monetary compensation. Mann is between a rock and a hard place, bless his heart.

        • It will strengthen Steyn’s case if Mann withdraws his, but it is not a default judgement against him. Mann will argue that his pursuit of his issues was too time consuming or some such nonsense, but the basis is still valid. Which Steyn will have to then prove malicious intent to deprive him of his rights. So no, it does not mean Steyn wins his by default.

      • The two actions (Mann libel suit, Steyn countersuit) are separate, although related. The appeal discussed here is part of the first action. If the appeal is upheld, the motion to dismiss the first suit will be reheard because the grounds for the appeal are that the original judge got the facts wrong. In other words, even if the appeal is upheld and not appealed further, NRO and CEI could still lose the rehearing on a motion to dismiss on other grounds. If after all that settles the first suit is dismissed under the SLAPP statute, it strengthens Steyn’s countersuit. But even if the motion to dismiss fails, Steyn’s suit can go forward, once Mann stops stalling on discovery.
        The judge can dismiss Mann’s suit or Mann can withdraw it; Steyn’s suit will remain. Just dropping the suit does not guarantee Steyn wins his, although it certainly does not hurt his chances.
        It is of course possible for the parties to reach an out of court settlement where both suits are dropped and they each promise to say nice things about each other, but that appears about as likely as Al Gore surrendering his Nobel Prize.

      • “Why not?”
        Because in US courts, while one can drop his case against another, a counter suit is a case brought against the one who brought the initial case. The counter suit would be based on injury (money, reputation or otherwise) caused by the original suit happening at all.
        (I’m a layman, a lawyer could probably say it better…and correct what I’ve got wrong.)

    • These guys do tend to go off half Koched don’t they??
      The reality is they go off totally crocked in Mann’s community

  2. As I’m sure Steyn would agree with, it’s a crying shame it took more than two years just to get to this point.

    • I don’t know. It’s unfortunate that Steyn has to pay for how drawn out its become, but I think in Manns case it’s ‘giving him enough rope’.
      There’s also the fact that every year that goes by without warming convinces that many more people that the whole theory was wrong to begin with. Five years ago SOMBODY would have filed in defense of Mann, probably many people. Now no one will.

    • Yes and note, virtually on the eve of Mann’s publication of the hockey stick in 1998, the blade was already beginning to sag back down and flatten out into the now so-called hiatus. It was the last possible year he could have published the hockey stick to any effect. I’ve found that ironic people have this type of timing.

  3. This is what I would say to the court:
    By allowing the suit to go forward it means in the future no fraudulent scientist can be called a fraud. Even if the court thinks peer review today is not corrupt, it could be in the future. Making a group (scientists) a special, legally-protected class is akin to creating a new nobility, and is profoundly anti-American.

      • For US libel law this is not the case when the scientist in question meets the standard of being a ‘public person’, which Mann does. To establish libel the public person plaintiff must show the defendant knowingly made false accusations, or made accusations with reckless disregard for their truth, and the plaintiff suffered actual damages as a direct result. This is a very tough burden of proof to meet, which is why Mann’s strategy is to impose legal expenses on Steyn and keep the process going for as long as possible.

      • Exactly. If the cap fits, make him wear it.
        There’s a long list of Climastrologists who should be forced to wear Dunce caps in public.
        Michael Mann’s should be the largest, but not because his head has swelled the most.

    • GPM,
      That is the only real problem I see. The judge in this case is such an incompetent that she can only rely on others to guide her. I’m very suspicious of that behind-the-scenes ‘guidance’.

      • If you’re thinking of Judge Natalia Combs Greene, she retired about a year ago and has been replaced in this case. I don’t recall the current judge.

  4. Wow this brief is a scorcher. Here is the money quote:
    “Mann’s discussion of these materials is so misleading as to seriously call into question his and his counsel’s candor to the Court. In these circumstances, it would be well within the Court’s discretion to order Mann and his counsel to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for misrepresentation of the record and for unreasonably imposing litigation costs on Defendants. See Bredehoft v. Alexander, 686 A.2d 586, 589 (D.C. 1996) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 4546 (1991)) (sanctions within Court’s inherent authority); Rule 30(b)(2)
    As a lawyer I can assure you this is not the type of charge lawyers make lightly and it is rare to find this type of language in a brief.

    • Agreed. I don’t recall seeing a brief call for sanctions before. That is a bold move. After reading the brief, I don’t think that it was unfounded. Honestly I wish courts would be more willing to impose sanctions for frivolous lawsuits.

  5. From reading the Brief and earlier submissions it seems to me that Mann, as my mother would have said, is ‘Off with the Faeries’, or in other words living in some fantasy world of his own.

      • Sorry, Don. You got that just a bit wrong. It should be: “He’s made his own bed; now let him lie about it”.

  6. Only someone untrained in the fundamental honesty that lies at the heart of scientific labor could possibly think it was just “colorful rhetoric” to accuse a scientist of fraud. To call a scientist fraudulent is to call him worthless. So I hope the judge doesn’t entertain the whole “protected opinion” line of argument for a second.
    They say truth is an absolute defense for defamation. But with a scientist’s honor at stake, it’s the only defense.
    Luckily Mann isn’t a scientist. He’s just a Chaucerian fraud.

  7. It should be easy for Mark Steyn to demonstrate damage in his counter suite with Mann. Mark used to write for National Review, but no longer dose because of Mann’s actions.
    If you can, please go to Mark Steyn’s web site and provide support to this noble effort.
    http://www.steynonline.com

    • I second the motion. Readers should look at what he has been able to do for freedom of speech in Canada. He succeeded in having an odious “progressive” politically correct, so-callled hate speech clause struck down from a federal statute, while the media and the left (which is quite large in Canada – they only come to conservatives when their redistribution of wealth has crippled the economy and has the golden egg goose moribund) were jumping all over Steyn. He was dragged before our kangaroo Human Rights Tribunals in two different provinces!! His compensation was to be the runner-up recipient of an award from the “Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom”. There are no costs awarded for winners before the HRT so it is a blunt instrument to make people behave.
      He has also won awards for similar reasons in Denmark, USA, etc.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn#Awards
      2nd paragraph: http://www.rulit.net/books/lights-out-islam-free-speech-and-the-twilight-of-the-west-read-358827-13.html
      Let’s hope his type keeps coming along,

  8. “EPA didn’t exonerate Mann, but it may well have exonerated the defendants”
    I knew you were going to win from the outset.
    Then I was certain.
    Then the evidence just kept piling in, and piling in,

    And now there’s still more.
    Only a climate “scientist” like Mann could be so stupid as to take this one to court.

    • Stupid, or just plain drama queen. Curry had a thread a few years ago on personality types that was very revealing. Climate scientists are very different from other physical scientists. More intuitive, etc. More like so-called social scientists. This explains a lot.

  9. I agree the brief is a scorcher. It is well written and succinct. The description of the supposed investigations that supposedly exonerated Mann are excellent – and appear to be well-informed by or congruent with the work of Steve McIntyre. I leave to lawyers here to comment on the request for sanctions.

  10. Just a pedantic point, these aren’t necessarily the final briefs: If the case goes to trial there will almost certainly be briefable points now and then, and at its conclusion, there will be post-trial briefs. Steyn’s observation that he is stuck in the clogged toilet of D.C. Justice is apt, and there is no plumber who will take that job.

    • US justice on trial in the DC courts — yup, you can count on a fair an impartial hearing. I think you’d have a better shot with a narrower focus. You can complain all you like about our laws and courts, but once you get there you’d better stick to the issue immediately at hand. Save the rest for your protest march:
      What do we want? Reasonable Laws and a Competent Judiciary!
      When do we want it? Before 2°C of Global Warming!
      At the current rate of warming, you might just get your wish.

  11. The reply brief fails to include the eerily similar rationalizations for dismissing accusations of wrong doing of Sandusky to those of Mann which are briefly mentioned in the reply brief.
    According to Penn State wrt Dr. Mann:
    “[Mann’s] success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it,
    clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field.…
    Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted
    practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards
    and recognitions…This would have been impossible had his activities in
    reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”

    And this wrt Sandusky:
    “This level of success on the football field and revenue generated from it,
    clearly places Coaches Paterno and Sandusky among the most respected
    professionals in their field. Such success would not have been possible had
    he not met or exceeded the highest standards of their profession in operating
    a football program…Had Coach Paterno or Coach Sandusky’s conduct of their program been
    outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for
    them to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve
    intense scrutiny from peers who may or may not agree with his program … ”

    This alone justifies the Mann is the Sandusky of climate science statement without actual malice.

    • If Mann were being completely candid, he’d say “I was exonerated with a Microsoft Word template only used once before in Penn history.”

    • JW:
      Nicely said. However, while Penn State is Penn State, Mann is not Sandusky. I think they are wise to minimize the references to Sandusky.

      • The reference to Sandusky is an indictment of Penn State’s cover-up/whitewash of the two. It does not equate Mann’s behavior to Sandusky’s. It has been Mann’s apologists who made that inference.

    • The Sandusky part isn’t real. It’s a parody by Steve McIntyre of the Mann statement. He may not have been clear enough that he was just showing the parallels in Penn State’s attitude in the two cases, not presenting an actual Penn State statement.

      • Thanks for clarifying that!
        I fell for it, in case that’s any consolation to the nearly-equally-brilliant people who’ve taken http://www.climatenuremberg.com literally. Unfortunately people have been repeating Steve’s parody minus the explanatory preamble:
        “It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program: “

  12. Harold
    September 25, 2014 at 9:32 am
    I think it’s finally dawning on Mann’s pro-bono lawyers that they’ve been boned.
    ————————
    Or rather “bono-ed.”
    But seriously, do you really think they are working for nothing with Soros and others with unlimited cash in the background?
    Mann himself gets $10k per speaking appearance.

  13. Mann is already saying it doesn’t matter if hockey sticks aren’t what he previously said they are. He states, “There are now dozens of hockey sticks and they all come to the same basic conclusion. The recent warming does appear to be unprecedented as far back as we can go. But even if we didn’t have that evidence, we would still know that humans are warming the planet, changing the climate and that represents a threat if we don’t do something about it.” See article from September 9 from which this quote arose here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/09/_97_hours_project_97_quotes_by_climate_scientists.html

    • Is there anything correct in the following statement from Mann?
      “…The recent warming does appear to be unprecedented as far back as we can go. But even if we didn’t have that evidence, we would still know that humans are warming the planet, changing the climate and that represents a threat if we don’t do something about it.” “

      • “But even if we didn’t have that evidence, we would still know that humans are warming the planet” …. What?
        So you don’t need evidence to know something? That is called “belief” and it is not science. I’m just gob-smacked that anyone calling themselves a scientist would utter such drivel.
        In the end he does not have evidence.

    • Bad Astronomy… must be written by Phil Plait, as ignorant of statistics as any typical high school graduate. Dozens of studies that use the same basic methodology (PCA = SVD = EVD = any second order statistics mechanism = same basic result) and same basic data when coming to the same conclusion is hardly a surprise. He doesn’t have the education or experience to understand this truth, so on he marches defending the indefensible. At best, a simple ideologue, in the middle, simply ignorant, at worst, liar.
      Mark

  14. New hit song in the Climate “Science” Community:
    Hit You With My Hockey Stick
    My name is Mickey Mann
    My Greatness you can’t Ban
    From Penn State to Climategate
    Its Deniers I love to hate
    I’ll Hit you with My Hockey Stick
    Hit you, hit you
    Moi j’adore, Ich liebe mich
    I’ll Hit you, hit you, hit you
    Hit you with My Hockey Stick
    Hit you slowly, hit you quick
    Hit you, hit you, hit you
    In the Wilds of To-ron-to
    And the vineyards of Santa Clar-o
    Steve-o, Watts-o
    See my Data? No! No! No!
    I’ll Hit ’em with My Hockey Stick
    Hit ’em, hit ’em
    Mann ist gut! Mann est fantastique!
    Hit ’em, hit ’em, hit ’em
    Hit ’em with My Hockey Stick
    It’s nice to be a lunatic
    I’ll Hit ’em, hit ’em, hit ’em
    Hit ’em, hit ’em, hit ’em
    In the Wilds of the DC Courts
    Where Suing Is My Favorite sport
    They Say My Stick’s a Fraud
    But its Mine, and so an Act of God
    I’ll Hit you with My Hockey Stick
    Hit you, hit you
    C’est si hot, mm? Ist es nicht?
    Hit you, hit you, hit you
    Hit you with My Hockey Stick
    Too hot models, uptick, uptick, uptick
    I’ll Hit you Alan, hit you Steve, hit you Ross
    I’ll Hit you Judy, hit you Andrew, hit you Tisdale
    I’ll Hit you Jo, hit you Marc, hit you Josh, oww
    I’ll Hit you Steyn, hit you Nic, hit you Jean, hit you Brenchley
    I’ll Hit you Pierre, hit you Willis, hit you Delingpole, hit you Donna, hit you Goddard
    I’ll Hit you Homewood, hit you Ridley, hit you Bastardi, hit you all you deniers!!!!!!!!!!
    For those who need the tune:

    RIP Ian Dury

  15. Mann’s use of the word “fraud” to describe the arguments of those with whom he disagrees and which was then excused by the EPA, perfectly illustrates how trivial and yet punitive his defamation suit is. While this appeal may not be successful, the long-term outlook for the suit is increasingly dim. Mann may even be secretly hoping the motion to dismiss is granted. Steyn speculated on something similar at the bottom of his last post on the subject.

  16. I seen to recall that the original lower-court judge stated that the standard of proof is a very low hurdle to get over for the Plaintiff, to avoid the anti-SLAPP laws of the jurisdiction. I recall thinking that it was akin to the standard applied to the Crown’s case in a preliminary hearing in Canadian criminal cases: if all of the evidence of the Crown (Plaintiff / Mann) is accepted as reliable, has the Crown (Plaintiff / Mann) produced a case that needs to be answered? If so, then it proceeds to trial. I don’t think the lower-court judge in this case ever said that Mann’s evidence was reliable; only that if he had been exonerated by various academic bodies, then there is a case for Steyn et al to answer. Is that not an accurate characterization of the lower-court judge’s original decision? If it is, there would be little point in appealing her decision by arguing that Mann was not really exonerated, since the reliability of Mann’s evidence would be one of the questions to be addressed at trial. I thought that the appeal was asking: is the lower-court judge’s characterization of the anti-SLAPP legislation correct? Is the standard of proof on the Plaintiff to establish a case really that low? (If it is, then the anti-SLAPP laws would curtail very few cases.) In other words, I thought the appeal was more on a question of law, or interpretation of law, than on the merits of the case in any normal sense.

    • If the court simply examines the case on the basis of the briefs, and does not consider if the briefs are truthful, then anti-SLAPP laws have no teeth.
      All a plantiff would need to do is to misrepresent to the court about what the evidence shows, and if the court did not look at the evidence to see if the plantif was telling the truth, then the court would have to let the case go forward.
      The question then is whether the court may look beyond the briefs when considering anti-SLAPP laws, to see if the briefs are factual and supported by the evidence.
      If the courts cannot consider the evidence, then anti-SLAPP laws can be circumvented by a plantiff misrepresenting what the evidence shows.
      I’m not sure that the CQI brief makes this point directly. They do argue that the plantiff is misrepresenting the evidence, but they don’t appear to make the point that this mechanism is a danger to anti-SLAPP laws and should be considered in this light. Or perhaps I missed it.

  17. The clear import of the CEI’s response is that Mann has not produced any verifiable fact in his submissions which shows that any statement made by Simberg/CEI can be shown to be false – notwithstanding that Mann is a public figure and must prove that such statements were not just false, but maliciously so.
    It is rare for lawyers to not shade the truth to influence the judge, and I’m not saying that they are not doing so this time, but if Mann has a case here then I’m genuinely not seeing it.
    The kicker is that CEI’s lawyers are making the case that some of Mann’s statements to the court are false and demonstrably so, meaning that Mann (and his lawyers) might have some explaining to do.

  18. One unfortunate slip up on an excellent brief – pg 18 ” Nothing in these reports dispels the reasonable suspi- cion prompted by the Climategate emails that Mann was up to no good: blackballing scientists skep- tical of catastrophic warming, devising “tricks” to “hide the decline” in temperatures, and suppress- ing his own doubts about the quality and strength of his research.
    The “Hide the decline” as we all know was the decline in the tree ring series not the instrumental record – this should be corrected asap!!

    • ” The “Hide the decline” as we all know was the decline in the tree ring series not the instrumental record – this should be corrected asap!!”
      Well spotted. Yes, that’s the kind of mistake the plaintiff could get very condescending about if it’s not fixed. It’s a decline in the maximum latewood density (MXD) of the tree rings, DESPITE the supposed RISE in temperatures at the same time.

    • Not at all. They used the proxies as long as they supported their proposition that the climate was warming. Once the proxies failed to comply, they substituted the instrumental record with no clear rationale why they were doing so. I think this speaks volumes as to the issues in this matter. In fact, it displays how shoddy their “science” is that they pick and choose what evidence to use to support their claims while conveniently disregarding that which contradicts the claims.

  19. The more I read all the court documents to date in Mann versus Steyn / NR and Mann versus CEI / Simberg the more I think Mann is just carrying out some kind of legal scorched earth retreat strategy. If so, do all the CAGW activists really want to be scorched in Mann’s retreat?
    John

  20. I quite enjoyed reading these two briefs from CEI and the National Review. As I have recently commented at http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/09/14/what-is-mann-that-thou-art-mindful-of-him/, where the author (like me) sees similarities between Mann and the U.K.’s pseudo-historian, David Irving …
    ==========

    [The Prussian] “You may recall – David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for calling him a fraud, and worse. He lost that case spectacularly, and what was left of his reputation was shredded beyond any hope of recall. Sound familiar?”

    Very 🙂 In fact, for some time, it has been my “thesis” that Mann is the David ‘I see you, I sue you’ Irving of climate science.
    As I had noted, over two years ago, when Mann launched the book he’s still doggedly flogging:

    just as the German publisher of Irving’s Dresden opus had added the subtitle, “A Novel”, to their publication – perhaps, in the interest of truth in publishing, this work of the “wily Cub Scout” wannabe should be re-titled Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A Novel.

    And, somewhat more recently, noting the relevant part of historian David Evans’ assessment of Irving’s work:

    IMHO, there is evidence galore which would suggest that Mann has not only adopted – to the letter – Irving’s “techniques”, but also wrongly and repeatedly made exactly such allegations against those who have the temerity to question his pronouncements of the so-called “scientific” kind (where he might have some expertise), or of any other kind – particularly the “policy” kind and the “statistical” kind – where he demonstrably has none.

    Notwithstanding Steyn’s (to date somewhat uncharacteristic!) reticence on the heels of CEI’s and The National Review’s respective – and eminently readable – Appellate Reply Briefs, published yesterday, the mileage of some may vary, but I don’t think that my “assessments” have been too far off the mark;-)
    I think it’s also worth noting that in the last few years, Mann has been reduced to teaming up with the likes of Stephan Lewandowski and his sidekicks at the U.K. Guardian, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. None of whom are what I would call “top tier” in their fields, nor do their academic qualifications have any relationship to “climate science”. Although they have certainly hitched their respective voices to the ever-growing (and increasingly mediocre!) PR bandwagon.
    =========
    I could be wrong, but it strikes me that when the history books of this seemingly never-ending episode are written, Mann – not unlike Irving – will be best known for having been the sole author of his own misfortune!

    • “will be best known for having been the sole author of his own misfortune!”
      Or at least the lead author.

  21. MODs, Seems that WordPress have been making changes (again!) and few if any of my links in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/final-briefs-filed-in-mann-libel-case/#comment-1746828 (currently in moderation) will actually work. Could you replace with the following (in which the links do work … well, that’s the view from here!) Thanks, Hilary:
    I quite enjoyed reading these two briefs from CEI and the National Review. As I have recently commented at http://www.skepticink.com/prussian/2014/09/14/what-is-mann-that-thou-art-mindful-of-him/, where the author (like me) sees similarities between Mann and the U.K.’s pseudo-historian, David Irving …

    [The Prussian] “You may recall – David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for calling him a fraud, and worse. He lost that case spectacularly, and what was left of his reputation was shredded beyond any hope of recall. Sound familiar?”

    Very 🙂 In fact, for some time, it has been my “thesis” that Mann is the David ‘I see you, I sue you’ Irving of climate science.
    As I had noted, over two years ago, when Mann launched the book he’s still doggedly flogging:

    just as the German publisher of Irving’s Dresden opus had added the subtitle, “A Novel”, to their publication – perhaps, in the interest of truth in publishing, this work of the “wily Cub Scout” wannabe should be re-titled Portrait of the Artist as an Aggrieved Mann: A Novel.

    And, somewhat more recently, noting the relevant part of historian David Evans’ assessment of Irving’s work:

    “IMHO, there is evidence galore which would suggest that Mann has not only adopted – to the letter – Irving’s “techniques”, but also wrongly and repeatedly made exactly such allegations against those who have the temerity to question his pronouncements of the so-called “scientific” kind (where he might have some expertise), or of any other kind – particularly the “policy” kind and the “statistical” kind – where he demonstrably has none.

    Notwithstanding Steyn’s (to date somewhat uncharacteristic!) reticence on the heels of CEI’s and The National Review’s respective – and eminently readable – Appellate Reply Briefs, published yesterday, the mileage of some may vary, but I don’t think that my “assessments” have been too far off the mark;-)
    I think it’s also worth noting that in the last few years, Mann has been reduced to teaming up with the likes of Stephan Lewandowski and his sidekicks at the U.K. Guardian, John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli. None of whom are what I would call “top tier” in their fields, nor do their academic qualifications have any relationship to “climate science”. Although they have certainly hitched their respective voices to the every-growing (and increasingly mediocre!) PR bandwagon.
    ========
    I could be wrong, but it strikes me that when the history books of this seemingly never-ending episode are written, Mann – not unlike Irving – will be best known for having been the sole author of his own misfortune!

  22. compare and contrast the the Judges initial ruling on the motion to dismiss and the subsequent Climate audit. org analyis of the exonorations.
    “Plaintiff has been investigated several times and his work has been found to be accurate. In fact, some of these investigations have been due to the accusations made by the CEI Defendants. It follows that if anyone should be aware of the accuracy (or findings that the Plaintiff’s work is sound) it would be the CEI Defendants.”
    Now go to climate audit . org and view S Mc’ analysis of the exonerations.

Comments are closed.