Mark Steyn makes motion to dismiss Mann’s libel claim

Mark Steyn makes motion to dismiss Mann’s libel claim (201-01-24). Anthony Watts suggests that “noted human righters activist” right-wing zealot Mark Steyn’s defamation of Dr. Michael Mann was an act of moral bravery. Don’t block the freedom of speech “sunlight” that only right-wing demagogues can give! Also, Steyn’s motion to dismiss the libel claim is NOT trying to wriggle off the hook of his own actions.

Steyn’s defence lawyers ditching him is just proof that there’s no more defending needed, right? As citizen-lawyer Anthony says eyes firmly locked in the mirror, that;

Mann would be a fool to pursue the case further, but then again, his ego is often so large that I surmise the state department of transportation must be forced to put out orange traffic cones ahead of him when he travels, so I doubt it will happen.

Strip away all the posturing, self-serving invocation of free speech, rabid contempt for legal process and the specific judges ruling in this matter and what’s left?

Steyn, and Anthony’s readers, think that Dr. Mann is a “public figure” and therefore they have the right to fabricate and spread any utter bullshit about him or his repeatedly confirmed research that they please. And oh, do they please.

My take on this is that Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have designed their attacks on climate science to take advantage of every legal fig leaf they can pull together to shield them from responsibility for their lies and misrepresentations. Now that they’ve been caught they are complaining hypocritically about the legal system that was their best weapon. Sucks to be them, but maybe they can scuttle back under their rock.

That Anthony Watts and company are convinced Steyn and friends should be able slip off the hook on a technicality says much about their own ethical foundations.

So how did it turn out? Steyn’s motion was rejected by the judge.

“For many of the reasons discussed in Judge Combs Greene’s July 19 orders, to state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation.

Open Letter to Jon Stewart – The Daily Show

“Open Letter to Jon Stewart – The Daily Show” (2014-01-17). I LOVE these denialist “open letters”! Anthony Watts seems to love ‘em too, but for different reasons. Anthony loves the chance to act as if he’s initiating a great public debate. When The Letter lands like a tiny pebble in a reeeeeally deep well he can pretend it was so beautifully argued that the (oblivious) target was shamed into silence. Me? I love the hubris.

Here we have Bob Tisdale lecturing Jon Stewart about his coverage of right-wing “weather!” whoppers on January 6th. Anthony Watts has had a pickle up his ass on the same topic; the recent deep cold snap should have been the final nail in the Global Warming hoax, right? But at least weatherman Anthony learned what the Polar Vortex is.

Bob lists his credentials up front so that Jon will sit up and take notice. He’s an “independent climate researcher” (code for “not a climate researcher”) and author of three ebooks!

I quite enjoyed Ingenious Pursuits‘ deconstruction: “Dr” Bob in retirement – just keep churning it out, check it out.

Like most denialists, Bob seems to consider himself a blend of Galileo and Martin Luther. Fierce intellect, incredible moral integrity, and probably the strength of ten men. Yeah, right. Bob’s just rattling through the usual tired and debunked denialist claims, misrepresenting evidence, demonstrating his ignorance of real scientific process or squawking “the models are wrong!”

I note that Anthony seems A-OK with the anti-Semitic undercurrent in his carefully moderated comments sandbox. Did you know Jon Stewart’s real surname is Leibowitz? This is apparently important to know.

50,000 attend rally with speech against climate agenda in Poland

50,000 attend rally with speech against climate agenda in Poland (2013-11-12). Hey Anthony Watts, lately you’ve been frothing over “Warmist” exaggeration of Super Typhoon Haiyan fatalities. (Except it doesn’t look like there was any exaggeration, does it?) How does if feel being caught doing what you tried to accuse others of, in literally the same breath?

Thanks to HotWhopper for unravelling this one: How’s That Polish Exaggeration Going, Anthony Watts?

Anthony, your original title was “50000 at Rally Against Climate Agenda in Poland” and your copy-and-pasted post led with UN climate summit in Poland greeted by 50,000 angry Poles rallying against UN”. You had to walk it back a bit, huh?

In fact (as opposed to CFACT) CFACT president David Rothbard spoke at an “Independence March” organized by nationalists and right-wing groups as a counter to official celebrations of Poland’s Independence Day (commemorating Poland’s 1918 release from Prussian, Austrian and Russian control). They didn’t give a shit about climate change. Far-right rioters leave trail of destruction in Polish capital: “The main target of the rioters appeared to have been any symbol of left-wing, liberal views” - Reuters

A good match, ideologically, I guess. But if Anthony thinks he can pass off CFACT egging on far-right rioters as Poles throwing the oppressive yoke of UN climate scientists… I’ve got a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.

The AGU climate policy statement as redrafted by Monckton

The AGU climate policy statement as redrafted by Monckton (2013-08-07). Anthony Watts posts a “guest essay” from the denialism’s leading intellectual, the publicity-seeking self-promoting fringe politician Lord Christopher Monckton.

Monckton gives us the denialist fantasy version of the American Geophysical Union’s periodically restated policy on climate change. No link to the true document provided by Watts or Monckton. In Monckton’s fevered imagination, “Our influence on the climate is minor but beneficial.” So, sorry everyone! False alarm.

His version would be correct if the AGU’s scientific go-to guy was a demented fringe politician with a journalism diploma who publishes Sudoku books instead of fifteen real and highly qualified scientists.

Journalist, AIDS curer, Nobel Prize Winner!

Monckton’s verbal acrobatics can be entertaining as he tries to simultaneously obscure his flimsy arguments and showcase his ‘towering intellect’ through wacky insults, but I won’t bothered wasting my time on the underlying debunked garden-variety nonsense. Try wottsupwiththatblog or HotWhopper if you want to figure out what he’s squawking about.

An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation (2012-12-28). A line has been drawn in the sand! The environmental gauntlet has been thrown! A fist has been clenched! A steely gaze has been directed! The GIANTS of climatology have been aroused! (Maybe we could have phrased that last one better.) Anthony Watts has added his name to a newspaper opinion piece!!!

So, preeminent 21st century climatologist (Not really. In fact, not even a bit), Joe D’Aleo has written a damning critique (not) of the EPA’s conclusion three years ago that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have harmful environmental consequences. And an important newspaper, the Washington Post has printed it! (Err.. the “Examiner”.) The usual denialist travelers like Fred Singer, Tim Ball, Don Easterbrook and Anthony Watts have signed on along with others we will leave unmentioned out of pity.

Here’s the laser-sharp money quote fired, like a diamond bullet, at the very core of the EPA, that Anthony urges his readers to “consider widely republishing”:

“In summary, it is not incorrect to argue that further study of the role GHGs play in climate is in order.”

My mind is spinning! From trying to decipher the meaning. I guess they want the EPA to stop trying to “P” our “E”?

What are Joe & Co. steamed about? Well mainly they hate government regulation on principle. Also they think that the EPA should have spent ten years replicating all the findings of modern climatology instead of just pulling out the relevant peer-reviewed journals. By the way, did you know that some of those journals aren’t American?

In what alternate reality is this proud “Open Letter” anything other than a kick me sign? Have D’Aleo, Watts and pals forgotten that their grade-school assertions were all shot down three years ago? Maybe they’re hoping that we’ve forgotten.

Rabett Run has an amusing sampling of the EPA’s responses to various inept denialist complaints. I wish there was an index to them, but here’s a useful Google search string. Plenty of chuckles in there.

A post election oddity I’m noticing

“A post election oddity I’m noticing” (2012-11-09). Ah yes, Anthony Watts notices flags flying at half-mast since the re-election of that communist Kenyan. Just sayin’!

Just another dispassionate observation from our science-minded guide.

Is it “a sign of distress or emergency” or “respect for the fallen in service of our country”? Anthony suggests that the flags identify right-thinking Americans, but let’s not forget Samuel Johnson’s observation – “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Suck it up, Anthony.

Climate totally absent from all presidential debates

“Climate totally absent from all presidential debates” (2012-10-22). Had to jump back to this otherwise disposable post by Anthony Watts. It struck me as illuminating that Anthony was so pleased that a topic on which he obsesses over is allegedly being ignored in the current US elections.

Surely if Anthony truly cared about the scientific debate he’d crave the opportunity to explain to the wider public why he’s right and the worlds almost uniformly nefarious climate scientists are wrong? After-all, he regularly boasts of his status as “the world’s best science blog”!

nobody cares anymore and the leaders don’t want to ride the lightning.

Nope. His only purpose is distraction and confusion. Shameful.