to comment on Mann vs. National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Well actually John and Eli have pretty much stated the facts of the case, and Eli believes that even with the increased cost of popcorn due to climate change induced crop failure it is well worth the entertainment value.
Yesterday's release of Michael Mann's response to NR and CEI requests for dismissal under the DC anti-SLAPP statue give no reason to change a bunny's mind. (Link to follow)
The response brings to the fore that there are two separate causes of action, first the odious comparison to Jerry Sandusky which has occupied the forefront of discussion, is cited for causing emotional distress, but, perhaps more importantly are claims of defamation
- Defendant Simberg’s statement, published by CEI on Openmarket.org, that Dr. Mann
had engaged in “data manipulation,” “academic and scientific misconduct,” and was
“the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber.” Compl. ¶
- Defendant Steyn’s statement, published by NRO on National Review Online, that Dr.
Mann “was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the
very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.” Compl. ¶ 60.
- Mr. Lowry’s statement, published by NRO on National Review Online, calling Dr.
Mann’s research “intellectually bogus.” Compl. ¶ 72.
- Defendant CEI’s press release, adopting and republishing the above statement by Mr.
Lowry calling Dr. Mann’s research “intellectually bogus.”
As EPA’s review and analysis shows, the petitioners routinely take these private e-mail communications out of context and assert they are ‘‘smoking gun’’ evidence of wrongdoing and scientific manipulation of data. EPA’s careful examination of the e-mails and their context shows that the petitioners’ claims are exaggerated, are often contradicted by other evidence, and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of science underlying the Administrator’s Endangerment Finding or the Administrator’s decision process articulated in the Findings themselves Petitioners’ assumptions and subjective assertions regarding what the e-mails purport to show about the state of climate change science are clearly inadequate pieces of evidence to challenge the voluminous and well documented body of science that is the technical foundation of the Administrator’s Endangerment Finding.Although CEI appealed this to the DC Circuit, which rejected their appeal. This considerably weakens their arguments because you cannot bring a matter before the courts and then reject the court's decision (note: a petition for en banc review was denied in December but there still may be a further appeal to the Supreme Court)