Far East Cynic

And now for a bit of good news.

I have said repeatedly, that the reason our Galtian overlords get away with the types of lies and slander they write daily-is because our libel laws have become so weak.

So its nice to see someone with the gumption to take one of the worst offenders in the Liars Club to task.

On Friday, the District of Columbia Superior Court ruled that climatologist and Penn State professor Michael Mann can proceed in his lawsuits against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Dr. Mann accuses the two conservative entities of defamation for comparing him to convicted rapist Jerry Sandusky last July.

Mark Steyn should be good for at least a million or so.

Now, if it were only possible to sue Breitbart posthumously.

  1. This promises to be hilarious. I'm looking forward to the trial.

    From the Court's decision:

    "The NR Defendants assert that the use of the interrogatory style in the statement "if an institution is prepared to cover up systematic rape of minors, what won't it cover up?" is further evidence that the statement was an opinion (one especially meant to raise questions about Penn State's investigation of its "star" employees)."

    And of course the Defendants will proceed to discovery at which point Mann will be forced to cough up his own copies of all the correspondance with his cronies at the East Anglia Climate Scam Center that prove that he knowingly lied about the models, methods and science he used in his models and his statements to the glamour press. It will just match what is already out there thanks to some mysterious benefactor who dumped 10s of 1000s of emails into the wild.

    Oh, and Skippy, srsly, Galtian overlords? You talking about the Man or the Senate or the liberal press. The bloom has come off the rose on the APG version of global warming and those propounding it with their fake science are left holding a whole lot of nothing and cannot prove a thing. As I recall, Mann was one of the set of serious ripoff artists who, after finding a conclusion that made money, claimed he destroyed all the data he used in his model which has made all of his work unrepeatable and thus, not science.

  2. Among your many other talents, we get to add climate change denier? Interesting. Better go back and look again-climate change is real.

  3. NO SKIPPY. You can't change the tune now and say I got it wrong. Those fucksticks, one and all, didn't say climate change. They said Global Warming. Try to stick to the facts.

  4. Curtis, the great part about having a discussion with you is that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Research. You should try it sometime.

    Those who perpetuate the "they changed the name" myth generally suggest two reasons for the supposed terminology change.  Either because (i) the planet supposedly stopped warming, and thus the term 'global warming' is no longer accurate, or (ii) the term 'climate change' is more frightening.

    The first premise is demonstrably wrong, as the first figure above shows the planet is still warming, and is still accumulating heat.  Quite simply, global warming has not stopped.

    The second premise is also wrong, as demonstrated by perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

    It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.

    “Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

    So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, 'global warming' and 'climate change' refer to different physical phenomena. The term 'climate change' has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".

  5. Love the new tune Skippy.

    Seriously, you're too easy.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/08/24/michael-mann-says-lawsuit-against-national-review-is-on-climate-depot-responds-to-mann-and-his-lawyers-claims-about-the-hockey-stick-climategate/

    Mann's thesis, later capitalized by Al Gore, was global warming and man-made global warming at that. It was all based on lies. Go to the link and look at all the research yourself.

    The only people talking about global warming are the ones confounded by the fact that the earth stopped warming 18 years ago.

    You should read the Climategate email dumps. Some of those emails from the global warming scammers were wonderful.

    …and no, I don't believe that Climate Change is not happening. There is clear evidence of ice ages and global warming throughout history and all of pre-history. Look at the various Ages of the Earth and see the spectacular die-offs that happened everytime the earth's climate changed. It didn't have anything to do with mankind or the earth. Enjoy reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_events.

    Mann and his 43 partners in crime ran a scam on the world and the wheels came off years ago. Only stupid people fail to see that.

  6. See you kind of miss the point-what's important here is that the National Review and in particular that usless piece of shit Mark Steyn are made to suffer for their slander. Furthermore-all of your so called "evidence" that their is no global warming has been repudiated by credible scientists.  The planet is getting warmer and the freak weather we are seeing is a result.

    Many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.

    Which gets to the real point-the douchebags at the National Review don't get a carte blance to print the bullshit they have been printing. 

  7. You are easily the most credulous idiot I know.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/05/dont-believe-the-global-warmists-major-hurricanes-are-less-frequent/

    The Dustbowl. Remember the Dustbowl? The Ice Age. Remember the Ice Age?

    The weather fucking changes and there is FUCK ALL you can do about it.

    Speaking of publishing. READ the damned letters your own damned self and not through your ideological filters. In the letters your idols talk among themselves and demand to know how some other scientist got published with facts denying their GLOBAL WARMING scam since they control all the publications and who gets to publish in them because they own peer review on the subject.

    and you. You think it's all Bush's fault.

    1. I read the details last year-I also have read much more reliable sources than Forbes, which point out that climate change is real, is a problem, and is going to create long term problems for the world. Specifically wrt to the Mann case-the fact that it got so much play in the conservative echo chamber should set off alarm bells in any rational person’s mind. Numerous independent reviews (PDF) conclude the emails were cherry-picked and misconstrued. But half of Americans now believe global warming is “generally exaggerated.” BTW the 2000s replace the 1990s as the hottest decade on record.

  8. Outstanding post however , I was wanting to know if you
    could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Thanks!

  9. The problem remains that the data is all suspect and corrupted. But here is another look for you. That was one of the most devestating attacks on the so called consensus of the global warmists. They refused to produce the data they used in their models and still haven't. None of the existing models accurately forecasts 20 years ahead using climate data inputs for any time in actual recorded history.

    http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11351-consensus-bending-from-warming-to-stalling-to-global-cooling-climate-scientists-abandoning-co2-agw-theory.html