By 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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think CEI gave Mann a good length of rope and he has all but put the finishing loops in his own noose.
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.
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
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 …
==========
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:
And, somewhat more recently, noting the relevant part of historian David Evans’ assessment of Irving’s work:
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.
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 …
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:
And, somewhat more recently, noting the relevant part of historian David Evans’ assessment of Irving’s work:
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!
Just an FYI, the Google Search result number is not accurate.
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.
“Fraud” is libelous and impermissible speech, except when the EPA and Friends use it.
/|8-p