Long time WUWT readers may remember that a defender of “the cause”, Professor Scott Mandia, donned a Halloween costume and professed his love of defending Michael Mann and others who have had to suffer the terrible, terrible, tragedy of people asking Climategate related questions about validity of science, peer review gatekeeping, and funding.
Mike likes the idea:
CSLDF was started when Scott Mandia posted a “Dear Colleagues” letter on his blog in September 2011. He wrote, “Climate researchers are in need of immediate legal assistance to prevent their private correspondence from being exposed” via misuse of open records laws. The outpouring of support was overwhelming, and helped pay for climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann’s legal defense against a massive and invasive records request. But scientists’ legal bills continued to mount, and Scott Mandia paired with Joshua Wolfe to create CSLDF. Source: http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/about-us/
Today, I got into an unexpected exchange over the word “denialist” with Professor Mandia, and I asked him a question. He responded almost immediately. Here is the exchange:
The reason I thought to ask this was because the recent Shukla debacle was highlighted by Representative Lamar Smith in his preservation letter as:
“IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change.
I recalled a comment made at Scott Mandia’s blog by the professor himself that stuck with me all these years. Given the RICO20 and Shukla mess, I thought it worth mentioning again. Here it is (highlight mine):
It seems to me that second “settled fact” might very well become unsettled as the Shukla Congressional investigation saga unravels. And with all that NSF largess in Shukla’s hands, and with the RICO20 letter he spearheaded looking to investigate climate skeptics, I naturally wondered if Shukla had given Mandia’s Climate Science Legal Defense Fund some money. It seemed like a valid question to ask.
Later in the Twitter thread, after Mandia threw out the Lewandowsky style “conspiracy” grenade, I asked again:
The last two questions were over a space of about 40 minutes, so it seems like he doesn’t wish to answer whether the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund has been the recipient of any money from Shukla and/or his IGES/COLA enterprise.
Now in fairness, he may just be pissed off that I asked such a question, and there may be nothing there at all. But I have to wonder why he wouldn’t at least address the question, because to not do so only invites more questions IMHO. It’s a curiosity.
If professor Mandia does respond here, I’ll elevate his comments to the body of the post to clear up any and all questions. I just checked Twitter feed again (now 4 hours later) and still no response.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I got snipped last time this photo was posted for questioning the guy’s gender…I wonder if I will this time…
I have decided to be polite and call anyone who uses the term “denier” an illiterate imbecile.
The politeness comes by PROVING to the the fellow carefully, with data, that he IS illiterate and that his understanding IS at or below a 10 year old level, the clinical definition of imbecility. Finding such proofs is remarkably easy.
When answered in such a polite manner, the addressee will realize: “This nice man, whom I mistakenly called “denier” without detailing the measurements he denied, had nothing personal against me. He simply proved that I was illiterate and imbecile, which is something I should be aware of…”
PS One should be careful, though. Someone who makes more than $1m/year off the scam may be offended when called “illiterate imbecile” rather than the more appropriate “shameless crook.”
PPS A few decades ago, women were subject to slights and verbal abuse. They answered politely, with “you are a sexist pig,” and the quality of the discourse improved considerably since.
So are the rubber boots for the rising ocean tides or for the rising piles of climate change activist manure.
I’ve wondered how the CSLDF spends its money, if it is a 501c(3) then it cannot be run for the benefit of individuals, which means if it is funding Dr Mann’s legal fees and that is a significant percent of its expenses it might have to lose its 501c(3) status.
One can see the nature of Mandia’s ideological dogma by the climate scientists he chooses not to support in legal defend funding and the ones he chooses to.
John
This has a lot of Scott Mandia background, most of which I wasn’t familiar with. It does suggest some potential eastern Massachusetts paths between him (or his parents) and the LCA land trust. Not very significant given the small finances involved, but mildly interesting.
http://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2012/03/05/scott-mandia-climate-communicator/
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/a-legal-defense-fund-for-climate-scientists/?_r=0
‘Supermandia’ doesn’t seem to like questions
Re-examining that photo I can believe that.
Still no reply from Mandia? And from all fictional heroes, why did he pick one from the previous millennium? Should have thought of the children with something more current, represented also by his own species. Say Green Lantern. Wait, I forgot. It works only with courage. Oh well, nice boots though.
TO SCOTT MANDIA –
Please respond. There are tens of thousands of people reading this blog. We would like to hear your thoughts on this. We won’t go away.
I’d love to see the books for Mandia. I’d love to see just how much involvement Penn State has with his little fund. Case law is clear. If your employer is funneling money to your “legal defense fund” its taxable income. I would love to see Mann get hit with a massive tax bill for his little law suit.
I’d be very surprised if Penn State has donated anything. Even it it (they – both CSLDF and that land trust) had a useful balance, I’d be surprised if anything came from Penn.
I’d also expect Mann to be funding things through friends with money or a percentage of any winnings.
The case law for employers and legal funds doesn’t come from a case where the employer directly depostied money either. They simply helped set it up and encouraged donations.
“Revenue rulings and other tax authorities set a high bar for finding a gift in connection with contributions either to legal defense funds or to politicians. In Rev. Rul. 60-14,30 sums contributed to a committee organized to raise funds for a taxpayer’s legal defense were income to the taxpayer and not gifts. The taxpayer, an official of an organization, was involved in litigation of a personal nature, but the litigation focused national attention on the organization. Although money contributed would go to pay the individual’s litigation costs, the officials of the organization formed the legal defense committee “for the professed purpose of counteracting unfavorable publicity” and raised funds from members of the organization. The committee made regular reports to the organization’s executive board. Excess funds were turned over to the organization. On those facts, the funds expended by the committee were not gifts to the taxpayer but constituted gross income to him. The committee’s aim of benefiting the organization indicated lack of donative intent.”
I’d love to see just how involved Penn State is with Mandia’s little project.
Don’t count on getting an answer.
“That humans are warming the planet is a settled fact”
The man does not live in the real world, he only sees what he wants to see.