Adler, J

<div>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">gets a cushy gig:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and <b>Regulation</b>.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><article class="post-22720 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-climatechange category-uncategorized" style="margin: 0px 0px 40px; position: relative;"><header style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="title" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.2em; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OzoneGate</font></h1></header><div class="post-meta" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.8em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 18px; vertical-align: baseline;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="small" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: lowercase;">by</span> <span class="author vcard" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: capitalize;"><span class="fn" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><a class="eric" href="http://volokh.com/author/eric/" title="Posts by Eric Posner" rel="author" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Eric Posner</a></span></span> <span class="small" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: lowercase;">on</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> <abbr class="date time published" title="2009-12-07T06:31:06-0500" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: help;">December 7, 2009</abbr> </span> <span class="small" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: lowercase;">in</span> <span class="categories" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://volokh.com/category/climatechange/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Climate Change</a>, <a href="http://volokh.com/category/uncategorized/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Uncategorized</a></span></font></div><section class="entry" style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em;"><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>In 1974, a pair of scientists published a paper claiming that chlorofluorocarbons, a compound used in refrigerators, air conditioners, aerosol spray cans, and other devices, migrated into the atmosphere, where they damaged the ozone layer.</b>  The ozone layer protects human beings from some of the harmful effects of the sun; the predictable consequence of its loss would be millions of skin cancer cases.  The scientists’ work was hotly contested; it eventually gained support in the scientific community, but there were also dissenters.  EPA would later regulate the use of CFCs in aerosols, but it was clear that unilateral regulation by the U.S. government would not solve the problem.  CFCs manufactured and used in any country could damage the ozone layer.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The American government turned to the Europeans, the other major manufacturers and users of CFCs.  Europeans, however, did not trust the science and expressed skepticism about the CFC theory.  After further scientific research established that an ozone hole had opened up above Antarctica, and that the likely cause was the emission of CFCs, the Americans dragged the still skeptical Europeans into a treaty regime that tightly regulated the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting gases.  The <b>Montreal Protocol </b>is the most successful environmental treaty ever (the only successful environmental treaty?).  The hole has been gradually shrinking and is expected to disappear later this century.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);">The odd part of this story is that, while not everyone agreed with the scientists who found the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, and that indeed, like everything else, the link was uncertain, albeit likely, governments were able to agree on a treaty regime.  The leading supporters of a treaty were<b> those tree-huggers in the Reagan administration, who were persuaded by a cost-benefit analysis </b>that the benefits from a ban on CFC greatly exceeded the costs—with the benefits properly discounted given residual scientific uncertainty.</span>  <b>There were ozone skeptics, but no Ozone Skeptics</b>.  There was a reasonable scientific theory but no models that got everything right all the time.  There was an observable hole (if you believed the scientists who measured it) but the physical processes that linked it to refrigerators and aerosol cans could obviously not be demonstrated to the public.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Where were the Climate Skeptics back then?  Or was ozonegate, like <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/03/asteroidgate/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">asteroidgate</a>, a non-event because the climate is a “complex system” whereas, um….  Why didn’t “hierarchical and individualist” citizens find the Montreal Protocol “threatening to their identities”?  (Cf. <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/asteroidgate-the-rocket-not-the-asteroid-packs-the-punch.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Dave Hoffman </a>on asteroidgate.)  Were scientists more honest in those days?  Commentators more sober?  The public more credulous?</font></p></section><div class="fix" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; zoom: 1;" /><div class="post-utility" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" /></article><div class="post-entries" style="margin: -20px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: rgb(255, 255, 255); clear: both;"><div class="nav-prev fl" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; float: left;"><a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/07/physicists-ask-americal-physical-society-to-rescind-its-statement-on-global-warming-because-it-was-based-on-cheating-and-corrupted-work/" rel="prev" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="icon-angle-left" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: none 0px 0px repeat transparent; text-decoration: inherit; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; display: inline; width: auto; height: auto; line-height: normal;" /> Physicists Ask American Physical Society to Rescind Its Statement on Global Warming Because It Was Based on “Cheat[ing]” and “Corrupted” Work</font></a></div></div></div><div><a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/07/ozonegate-and-climategate/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://volokh.com/2009/12/07/ozonegate-and-climategate/</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><header style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><h1 class="title" style="margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.2em; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OzoneGate and ClimateGate</font></h1></header><div class="post-meta" style="margin: 0px 0px 1.8em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 18px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span class="small" style="background: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: lowercase;">by</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"><span class="author vcard" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: capitalize;"><span class="fn" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a class="jonathan" href="http://volokh.com/author/jonathan/" title="Posts by Jonathan H. Adler" rel="author" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Jonathan H. Adler</a></span></span> </span><span class="small" style="background: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: lowercase;">on</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><abbr class="date time published" title="2009-12-07T09:06:07-0500" style="background: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: help;">December 7, 2009</abbr><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><abbr class="time published" title="2009-12-07T09:06:07-0500" style="background: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-top-style: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-bottom-style: dashed; border-left-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); border-left-color: initial; border-image: initial; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; cursor: help;">9:06 am</abbr><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span class="small" style="background: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: lowercase;">in</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span class="categories" style="background: transparent; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><a href="http://volokh.com/category/climatechange/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Climate Change</a>, <a href="http://volokh.com/category/environment/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent; text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold;">Environment</a></span></font></div><section class="entry" style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em;"><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In his post below, <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/07/ozonegate/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Eric Posner asks</a> why ozone depletion and the phaseout of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances did not produce the same degree of backlash as does global warming.</font></p><blockquote style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 10px 20px 10px 50px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; quotes: none; position: relative;"><p style="margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Where were the Climate Skeptics back then?  Or was ozonegate, like <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/2009/12/03/asteroidgate/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">asteroidgate</a>, a non-event because the climate is a “complex system” whereas, um….  Why didn’t “hierarchical and individualist” citizens find the Montreal Protocol “threatening to their identities”?  (Cf. <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/12/asteroidgate-the-rocket-not-the-asteroid-packs-the-punch.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Dave Hoffman </a>on asteroidgate.)  Were scientists more honest in those days?  Commentators more sober?  The public more credulous?</font></p></blockquote><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>I would challenge some of Eric’s assumptions.  There were climate skeptics back then </b>(<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">indeed, some of the ozone skeptics back then are climate skeptics now) </span>and “hierarchical and individualist” citizens (as represented by right-of-center authors, commentators, and think tanks) challenged the scientific claims.  Accepting his implicit assumption that the scientific case for a link between CFCs and ozone depletion at the time was no greater than for apocalyptic climate change today, there was still much less at stake, so the scientific debate had less salience, and there was less political controversy.  I’ll briefly expand on each point.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">First, there was significant skepticism about initial ozone depletion claims, skepticism that was echoed and amplified by those who opposed government regulation.  Questions about ozone depletion were raised in Dixy Lee Ray’s best-selling <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895265443/amazon0156-20/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Trashing the Planet</em></a> and <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">echoed by Rush Limbaugh</a>. <b> In 1989, <em style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">National Review </em>published the article “My Adventures in the Ozone Layer” by Dr. Fred Singer,</b> a prominent skeptic of both ozone depletion concerns and climate change</span>.  Early on, such skepticism was warranted, but as scientific evidence accumulated, many of those inclined toward skepticism accepted the basic claim that CFCs could and did cause ozone depletion.  <b>Ronald Bailey’s 1993 <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312109717/amazon0156-20/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Eco-Scam</em></a>, for instance, accepted the basic scientific claims and acknowledged that ozone depletion could have been a significant concern.</b>  Still, even today there are pockets of skepticism related to ozone depletion, particularly about the contribution of certain chemicals, such as methyl bromide.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Second, policies to control ozone depletion are not nearly as far-reaching or intrusive as policies to limit the emission of greenhouse gases.  CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances were always specialized chemicals.  They were in widespread use as coolants, but they still don’t compare to carbon dioxide, the most ubiquitous by-product of modern industrial civilization.  Buying new refrigerators and retrofitting car air-conditioners may be expensive or inconvenient, but it hardly compares to the sorts of measures contemplated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   So it’s not surprising that there was less outrage or resistance to the scientific claims.  [This also highlights an important difference between climate change and <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/2009/12/03/asteroidgate/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Eric’s asteroid example</a>: the anti-asteroid rockets would presumably be financed by general tax revenues and provided as a public good, whereas climate policies will impose disproportionate costs and controls on specific sectors of the economy.]</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Third, there’s an important wrinkle in the history of U.S. policy on ozone depletion that Eric omits.  Initially, the U.S. government was adamantly opposed to controlling CFCs, beyond the initial 1978 ban on their use in aerosol cans.  In the 1980s, however, the U.S. government did not support a CFC phase-out until industry was on board.  And industry was not on board until the leading CFC manufacturer, DuPont, faced significant competition for its patented CFC compounds and and was well-positioned to dominate the replacement market. When DuPont joined the call for a complete phaseout in 1988, the CFC trade industry still voiced some  skepticism about the science, but DuPont was ready to sell more expensive CFC substitutes — compounds for which there would have been no real market without the phaseout.  [For those interested, I summarized this history near the end of my 1996 article, <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv19n4/v19n4-4.pdf" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;"><em style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Rent-Seeking Behind the Green Curtain</em></a>.]</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In retrospect, the CFC phaseout was a good idea, but even assuming that the level of scientific certainty was no greater when the CFC phaseout was adopted than there is with climate change today, there are many important differences between the two policy debates.  First,there was less reason for skepticism to blossom into sustained political opposition because there was less at stake — the phaseout’s costs were concentrated on a few industries, not spread economy wide, and a CFC phaseout did not threaten regulatory controls on ordinary Americans.  Second, the potential economic benefits to dominant industry players meant powerful economic  interests supported the phaseout, interests that far outweighed those sectors likely to experience significant costs (and, in these sectors as well, groups rapidly emerged to capture the rents a phaseout could produce).  So there were powerful “bootleggers” to support the environmental “baptists.”  Third, the most significant effects of a phaseout were likely to be felt overseas, in those nations in which a CFC phaseout would diminish the availability of affordable refrigeration technologies, and those nations could be easily bought off.  I also think the nature of the CFC threat — a potential increased risk of skin cancer — generates more political traction than a change in temperature.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Another important difference between ozone depletion and climate change, is that there was reason to believe that a near-total phaseout of CFCs was the only meaningful way to address the threat of ozone depletion, whereas there may be ways to address climate change concerns that don’t involve empowering a massive regulatory bureaucracy.  While most climate policy proponents advocate far-reaching regulatory programs, covering everything from industrial emissions and transportation to product design and land-use, there are alternative ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, atmospheric concentrations, or the threat of enhanced greenhouse warming (if not all three), ranging from revenue-neutral carbon taxes to technological fixes, to various forms of geoengineering.  Because there is a disproportionate emphasis on regulatory controls, some opponents of clmate policies suspect some climate policy advocates are as interested in imposing such controls as they are in saving the planet — as then-Senator Tim Wirth said some 20 years ago, global warming was an excuse to “do the right thing” even if the problem wasn’t real.</font></p><p style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px 0px 1.2em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 1.5em; vertical-align: baseline; text-indent: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>To reiterate my own views, I believe that human activity contributes to global warming, and that it is a serious concern (even if I don’t accept claims that global warming threatens human civilization).</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 204, 102);"> ClimateGate is a real scientific scandal that may justify increased caution about some of the more definitive or apocalyptic statements about climate science, but I do not see it compromising the essential case for a human contribution to climate change.</span>  My policy preference is for measures that do the most to address the actual threats posed by warming while minimizing consequent restrictions on liberty or the imposition of costs on those who have not contributed signficantly to the problem. <b> I think massive regulatory programs are ill-adivsed, and that proposed cap-and-trade programs will provide massive opportunities for rent-seeking while doing little to reduce actual emissions or enhance our capacity to deal with the problem.</b> <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> On the other hand, I would welcome a revenue-neutral carbon tax, combined with other policies to enhance technological innovation, and believe that industrialized nations should help more vulnerable nations adapt to the inevitable, and at this point unavoidable, near to medium term effects of projected warming.  I’ve also argued (in <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=6B83C9C5B71539382B41003E75FADD77.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=5878664" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">this article</a>) that principled adherence to libertarian principles justifies greater action on climate change.</span></font></p></section></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"></font></p><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">v conspir in wapo</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/28/does-democracy-in-chains-paint-an-accurate-picture-of-james-buchanan/</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">
</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">no link</font></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4" /><div><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4">The Volokh Conspiracy Opinion</font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></div><div>Does ‘Democracy in Chains’ paint an accurate picture of James Buchanan? [with updates]</div><div>By Jonathan H. Adler June 28, 2017 </div><div>
</div><div>Nancy MacLean’s new book, “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America,” presents a sharply critical intellectual history of the libertarian right in America, with a particular focus on Nobel laureate James Buchanan, often credited as one of the founders of “public choice” economics. As MacLean tells it, Buchanan’s work was profoundly anti-democratic and is responsible for much of the political dysfunction we witness today.</div><div>
</div><div>MacLean’s book is receiving significant attention, not all of it positive. Glowing reviews have appeared in Slate, the Atlantic and the New Republic, and on NPR. The review on the Law & Liberty blog, on the other hand, was a more-than-a-bit more critical, and Daniel Mitchell has posted a sharply negative review of the positive reviews.</div><div>
</div><div>Disagreements about a book with a politically charged thesis are nothing new. More notable, perhaps, are allegations that MacLean has misquoted and misrepresented material to create a less flattering — but also less accurate — picture of her subjects.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Russell Roberts, for example, points to MacLean’s treatment of Tyler Cowen. According to Roberts, MacLean has selectively quoted Cowen in a highly misleading way. His critique is followed by MacLean’s response and Roberts’s reply. Readers may judge who has the best of the exchange. Don Boudreaux comments as well.</div><div>
</div><div>Roberts is not the only one to raise such concerns. David Henderson points to another example of selective quotation, this time involving Buchanan. Phillip Magness alleges that MacLean concocts a connection between Buchanan and Southern Agrarian thinkers that simply did not exist. Boudreaux argues that MacLean misrepresents Buchanan’s intellectual influences. There appears to be a pattern here, and it is not a good one. If MacLean responds to any of these allegations, I will post an update with links.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the various reviews — positive and negative — MacLean devotes substantial attention to those who have funded libertarian academic work, the Koch brothers in particular. Thus I had to chuckle when BHL’s Jason Brennan pointed out that MacLean’s book was funded, at least in part, by the federal government. So an attack on academics critical of government was funded by … the government. Were Buchanan still alive I suspect this would make him smile.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>UPDATE: Ramesh Ponnuru comments on MacLean’s exchange with Roberts.</div><div>
</div><div>Steven Horwitz has found another area in which MacLean appears to misrepresent (or misunderstand) what Buchanan wrote. Horwitz argues this is a “running problem with the book.” He writes:</div><div>
</div><div>MacLean has, by her own admission, very little knowledge of economics. In addition, her knowledge of Buchanan’s own work comes mostly from his autobiography Better than Plowing, The Calculus of Consent, and two secondary sources that are highly critical and have their own problems of good faith interpretation. In the most generous reading, she is misunderstanding arguments and chopping up quotes because she simply doesn’t understand what Buchanan and his collaborators are up to. In the least generous reading, she has a theory and she’s going to cut up the evidence to fit that theory. If one believes that modern libertarians are the enemies of democracy, progress, equality, and all that’s good in the world, and MacLean clearly does, then the evidence will always be read, and sometimes constructed, in ways that support the argument on the side of the angels.</div><div>
</div><div>Unfortunately, anyone who takes the time to read the actual sources she’s working from, or who understands public choice theory, can see this exercise for what it is: a travesty of scholarly standards (no, Charles Dickens’ novels do not count as data about the economic conditions of the 19th century) and a smear job on one of the great minds of the 20th century.</div><div>
</div><div>SECOND UPDATE: My co-blogger David Bernstein finds more of the same. Indeed, it seems the more that people look, the more problematic MacLean’s account becomes.  No matter. The book is listed on Oprah.com as one of the 20 must reads of the summer.</div><div>
</div><div>THIRD UPDATE: David has more in a follow-up post, documenting numerous errors in MacLean’s discussion of George Mason University.</div><div>
</div><div>Here’s more from Phil Magness too, focusing on MacLean’s effort to paint libertarians and public choice economists as fans of Calhoun.</div><div>
</div><div>And there’s still more to come, as I’ve now seen several more examples that have yet to be written up.</div><div>
</div><div>It’s becoming increasingly clear why this book was not published by an academic press.</div><div>
</div><div>FOURTH UPDATE: Michael Munger, former chair of Duke’s Political Science Department, has written an extensive review and response to MacLean’s book. It’s understated, but fairly devastating. [Here, also, is a Cato podcast with Munger discussing the book.]</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>FIFTH UPDATE: David Boaz discovers he’s been misquoted and misrepresented. Daniel Bier finds sloppy research. And Art Carden finds more of the same.</div><div>
</div><div>MacLean has not responded substantively to any of the critiques (save for her response to Russell Roberts linked above). If she does (or if others rise to her defense against the specific charges noted here), I’ll post links. She has, however, posted a lengthy item on Facebook urging her fans to boost her book on Amazon and elsewhere (reproduced here).</div><div>
</div><div>SIXTH UPDATE (7/12): David Gordon and Jeff Tucker are the latest to find substantive problems in Democracy in Chains.  Michael Giberson proposes a game: Fun with footnotes.</div><div>
</div><div>For those interested, Don Boudreaux highlights a Buchanan quote that summarizes public choice for the uninitiated. For MacLean’s account of Buchanan’s work, in her own words, here’s a recent interview.</div><div>
</div><div>Ilya Somin notes the fundamental inconsistency buried within MacLean’s normative critique of Buchanan.</div><div>
</div><div>David Bernstein comments on MacLean’s missive alleging a coordinated campaign against her book, as does Boudreaux. Inside Higher Education also offered a report on the controversy too.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>There has been a fair amount of commentary (especially on Twitter) about the attacks on Democracy in Chains, but relatively little substantive discussion of the book. I would gladly post links to and excerpts from substantive defenses of the books, but I have yet to find any. I am also reaching out to MacLean directly with an offer to post a response.</div><div>
</div><div>Finally, since MacLean and others have alleged I have a particular loyalty to the Kochs, perhaps due to some undisclosed financial interest, a bit of disclosure. I have spoken at various Koch-sponsored programs, for which I received modest honoraria, and have solicited and received grants for projects from the Charles Koch Foundation, the last of which was this roundtable eight years ago, for which I received no compensation. As longtime VC readers can attest, none of this prevented me from being quite critical of the Kochs when I thought they deserved it (as in my extensive serious of posts on the Koch-Cato dispute, many of which may be found here).</div><div>
</div><div>SEVENTH UPDATE (7/14): Henry Farrell and Stephen Teles — neither of whom is particularly libertarian — critique the “transparently flawed” Democracy in Chains at Vox.com, noting the broader problem of adopting conspiratorial views of history and political movements. This is a must read for all who are interested in this controversy.</div><div>
</div><div>Other recent commentaries include a commentary from Duke University’s George Vanberg and Don Boudreaux’s response to IHE story noted above, and his commentary on an allegedly important Buchanan memo from 1973. Roderick Long also catches MacLean misrepresenting Murray Rothbard.</div><div>
</div><div>Steve Horwitz adds some thoughts on “When Academia Turns to Fight Club.”</div><div>
</div><div>Finally, I’ll note again that I’ve attempted to contact both Nancy MacLean and her publisher with the offer to publish a response to the criticisms of her book. I have yet to hear back from anyone.</div><div>
</div><div>EIGHTH UPDATE (7/17): I have still not heard back from Prof. MacLean or her publisher about a response to any of the critiques noted above. The offer remains open.</div><div>
</div><div>Two academics have risen to MacLean’s defense, however: John Jackson and Andy Seal. I do not find either comment to be particularly compelling, but your opinion may differ. Both address, among other things, the extent to which Buchanan’s work aided segregationists.  I recommend perusing the comment sections of each post. On this specific question, I also recommend this post by Phil Magness.</div><div>
</div><div>On another front, Steve Horwitz found a review of one of MacLean’s older books by noted historian J. Morgan Kousser. In this review, Kousser claims MacLean’s arguments are “circular and ahistorical.” Noting the praise the book received, he ponders in closing: “Does evidence count in history anymore?”</div><div>
</div><div>NINTH UPDATE (7/21): Nancy MacLean has finally responded to her critics, in an e-mail interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education. A companion article in the Chronicle reports on the controversy. David Bernstein and I each offered comments.</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, the criticism continues to mount. Here, for example, is a fairly devastating review by Brian Doherty, author of Radicals for Capitalism: A Free-Wheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.</div><div>
</div><div>Phil Magness has additional comments on MacLean’s discussion of Buchanan’s agrarian roots. Arnold Kling comments on “the ethical issue” raised by MacLean’s work.</div><div>
</div><div>Steven Hayward notes that MacLean’s even lost liberal historian Rick Perlstein, and suggests the publicsher may wish to withdraw the book. Hayward offers additional comments here. George Monbiot, on the other hand, offers a more favorable account of the book.</div><div>
</div><div>My offer to publish a substantive response to the criticisms of her book stands.  Barring such a response by MacLean, here or elsewhere, I suspect this will be the final update.</div><div>
</div><div>TENTH UPDATE (8/30): Two lengthy, highly critical reviews of MacLean’s book are now on SSRN: “Confirmation Bias Unchained” by Steven Horwitz and “Buchanan the Evil Genius” by Art Carden and Phillip Magness.</div><div>
</div><div>Two more sympathetic takes can be found in the Boston Review by Bethany Moreton and Marshall Steinbaum. The Boston Review has also published a critical essay by Farrell and Teles, “When Politics Drives Scholarship.”</div><div>
</div><div>The NYT also offers this review, which notes MacLean’s “overt moral revulsion at her subject can sometimes make it seem as if we’re getting only part of the picture.” As the above links should illustrate, that impression is quite justified.</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman" size="4"></font></div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font>

<span id="docs-internal-guid-371fb379-b420-9c87-efaf-6720d4e3a72f"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Speaker Biographies<br class="kix-line-break" />

Jonathan H. Adler<br class="kix-line-break" />

Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law<br class="kix-line-break" />

Case Western Reserve University School of Law<br class="kix-line-break" />

11075 East Boulevard<br class="kix-line-break" />

Cleveland, OH 44106<br class="kix-line-break" />

Phone: 216.368.2535<br class="kix-line-break" />

jha5@case.edu<br class="kix-line-break" />

Jonathan H. Adler is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for<br class="kix-line-break" />

Business Law & Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, where he teaches<br class="kix-line-break" />

courses in <b>environmental</b>, administrative, and constitutional law. Professor Adler is the author or editor of<br class="kix-line-break" />

four books on environmental policy and over a dozen book chapters. His articles have appeared in<br class="kix-line-break" />

publications ranging from the Harvard Environmental Law Review and Supreme Court Economic Review to<br class="kix-line-break" />

The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.</span><span style=" font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Professor Adler is a Senior Fellow at the Property &<br class="kix-line-break" />

Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana,</span><span style=" vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> a contributing editor to National Review Online and a<br class="kix-line-break" />

regular contributor to the popular legal blog, â€œThe Volokh Conspiracyâ€ (http://volokh.com).<br class="kix-line-break" />

Professor Adler serves on the academic advisory board of the Cato Supreme Court Review, the Board of<br class="kix-line-break" />

Directors of the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, and the Environmental Law<br class="kix-line-break" />

Instituteâ€™s Environmental Law Reporter and ELI Press Advisory Board.<br class="kix-line-break" />

Prior to joining the faculty at Case Western, Professor Adler clerked for the Honorable David B. Sentelle on<br class="kix-line-break" />

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. From 1991 to 2000, Professor Adler worked at<br class="kix-line-break" />

the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., where<br class="kix-line-break" />

he directed CEI's environmental studies program. He holds a B.A. magna cum laude from Yale University<br class="kix-line-break" />

and a JD summa cum laude from the George Mason University School of Law.</span></font></span>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">natrev archive</font>

<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jonathan-h-adler"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://www.nationalreview.com/author/jonathan-h-adler</font></a>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==

 </font></p>

</div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Volokh Conspiracy</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mann v. Steyn – Mann wins round two</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">BY JONATHAN H. ADLER January 23 </font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Wednesday, Judge Frederick Weisberg handed climate scientist Michael Mann a potentially significant victory in his defamation suit against<b> Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.</b> In a relatively brief order, Judge Weisberg denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery in the suit.  He explained:</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Opinions and rhetorical hyperbole are protected speech under the First Amendment. Arguably, several of defendants’ statements fall into these protected categories. Some of defendants’ statements, however, contain what could reasonably be understood as assertions of fact. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For reasons I explained here, I am skeptical of this result.  Judge Combs-Greene’s opinion was unpersuasive (and error-ridden) and Judge Weisberg — insofar as he adopted the same reasoning — is similarly mistaken. (Note, however, that Judge Weisberg did not claim he was bound by Judge Combs-Greene’s conclusions under the law of the case doctrine.)  The statements at issue — however wrongheaded or outrageous — constituted protected expressions of opinion.  Berkeley’s Dan Farber, who is undoubtedly less sympathetic to the defendants than am I, likewise believes the comments at issue were protected speech. </font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">At this point, the defendants — or most of them, at least — are likely to renew their effort to seek interlocutory review.  There is some question whether review of a <b>denial of a motion to dismiss under D.C.’s anti-SLAPP statute</b> is available, but the defendants will take their shot — and will almost certainly get renewed support from amici.  The last time around, their effort was supported by the ACLU, Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press (joined by several more media organizations), and the District of Columbia.</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I expect Simberg, CEI, and NR to pursue this course.  I’m not so sure about Steyn.  Steyn and NR have had some differences of late and they’ve terminated their joint representation.  (Judge Weisberg granted the lawyers’ permission to withdraw on January 8.)  Steyn is now critical of his lawyers’ approach to the case and, at least for the moment, is representing himself.  (You know what they say about the lawyer who represents himself, but Steyn is not a lawyer.)</font></div>

</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Tuesday Steyn filed a flowery motion on his own behalf assailing Judge Combs-Greene’s handling of the case (what he calls a “procedural fiasco”), seeking to withdraw from motions previously filed on his behalf, and and suggesting that he’s done with any more procedural wrangling in this case.  Steyn apparently wants the judge to dismiss the case or get on with a trial. The filing may have made for a fun blog post, but I doubt it was helpful to his case.  The sort of rhetoric that drives web traffic is not particularly effective in court.  Then again, perhaps that’s Steyn’s hope.  As he concludes his latest post:</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The lesson of the last year is that you win a free-speech case not by adopting a don’t-rock-the-boat, keep-mum, narrow procedural posture but by fighting it in the open, in the bracing air and cleansing sunlight of truth and justice.</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UPDATE: More reactions from Steyn here and here.</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Note: I've updated some links in this post and added a disclosure below. JHA]</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DISCLOSURE: As I noted in prior posts on this case (before the blog moved), I am a contributing editor at National Review Online, which means I have a fancier byline when I submit articles to them and occasionally contribute to The Corner and Bench Memos.  It is not a salaried position.  I also worked at CEI from 1991-2000 — many years before the events at issue in this litigation.</font></div>

</font></div>

</font></div>

<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan H. Adler teaches courses in constitutional, administrative, and environmental law at the Case Western University School of Law, where he is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation. He clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and is a Senior Fellow at the Property & Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana. Follow: @jadler1969</font></div>

</font></div>

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; width: 560px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(10, 48, 78); padding-top: 60px; padding-bottom: 60px; margin-left: 5px; line-height: 28px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jonathan H. Adler is the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, where he teaches courses in environmental, administrative and constitutional law.</span>

<span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Adler is the author or editor of five books and over a dozen book chapters. His articles have appeared in publications ranging from the</span><span class="Apple-converted-space" style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><em style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Harvard Environmental Law Review</em><span class="Apple-converted-space" style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and</span><span class="Apple-converted-space" style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><em style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Supreme Court Economic Review</em><span class="Apple-converted-space" style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">to</span><span class="Apple-converted-space" style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><em style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Wall Street Journal</em><span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and</span><span class="Apple-converted-space" style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><em style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">USA Today</em><span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. He has testified before Congress a dozen times and his work has been cited in the U.S. Supreme Court. Adler is a contributing editor to</span><em style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">National Review Online</em><span class="Apple-converted-space" style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and a regular contributor to the popular legal blog, "The Volokh Conspiracy," hosted by washingtonpost.com. A regular commentator on constitutional and regulatory issues, he has appeared on numerous radio and television programs, ranging from the PBS "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" and NPR's "Talk of the Nation" to the Fox News Channel's "O'Reilly Factor" and "Entertainment Tonight."</span>

<span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Adler is a senior fellow at the </span><span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Property & Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana</span><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">. He also serves on the academic advisory board of the Cato Supreme Court Review, the Board of Directors of the <b>Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment </b>and the <b>Environmental Law Institute</b>'s Environmental Law Reporter and ELI Press Advisory Board.</span>

<span style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In 2007, the Case Western Reserve University Law Alumni Association awarded Adler their annual "Distinguished Teacher Award." A 2007 study also identified Adler as the most cited legal academic in environmental law under age 40, and his recent article, "Money or Nothing:</span><b style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> The Adverse Environmental Consequences of Uncompensated Law Use Controls,</b><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">" published in the Boston College Law Review, was selected as one of the ten best articles in land use and environmental law in 2008. In 2004, Adler received the</span><b style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Paul M. Bator Award, given annually by the Federalist Society for Law and Policy Studie</b><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">s to an academic under 40 for excellence in teaching, scholarship, and commitment to students.</span>

<span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Prior to joining the faculty, Adler clerked for the Honorable </span><b style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">David B. Sentelle</b><b style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </b><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. From 1991 to 2000, Adler worked at the </span><b style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Competitive Enterprise Institute (</b><span style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">CEI), a free market research and advocacy group in Washington, D.C., where he directed CEI's environmental studies program. He holds a BA magna cum laude from Yale University and a </span><b style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">JD summa cum laude from the</b><b style=" background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> George Mason University</b><b style=" font-weight: normal; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> School of Law.</b></font></div>

<div style=" margin-bottom: 53px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Personal Statement</font></div>

<div style="font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; width: 619px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(10, 48, 78); padding-top: 60px; padding-bottom: 60px; margin-left: 5px; line-height: 28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Environmental law is an exciting, ever-changing, and challenging field. Environmental concerns impact a wide-range of policy questions and have far-reaching implications for the law and the world in which we live. Legal institutions affect our ability to protect air and water quality, conserve species and their habitats, and safeguard public health. Environmental law is also important because it has the potential to shape legal doctrines in other areas. The ambitious scope and reach of environmental law places significant demands upon traditional legal rules and forces courts and policy makers to reconsider long-standing legal doctrines. Today, environmental questions are at the core of many controversies in constitutional and administrative law, including the proper level of protection for private property rights, the extent of federal regulatory authority, and the requirements for standing to bring a case in federal court."</font></div>

<div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; width: 560px; border-top: 1px solid rgb(10, 48, 78); padding-top: 60px; margin-left: 5px; line-height: 28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Much of my research focuses on constitutional questions arising from current efforts to protect the environment, such as the implications of court-imposed limits of federal regulatory authority for environmental protection. <b>The U.S. Constitution creates a federal government of limited powers. As there is no enumerated power to "protect the environment," this means that the federal government's power to address environmental concerns is limited as well.</b> In recent articles I have examined the potential limits of federal regulatory authority and questioned whether constitutional constraints on federal environmental regulation will undermine environmental protection. Additional research projects include an examination of the constitutional limitations on the government's ability to compel commercial speech and fishery conservation.

More information is available on my personal website:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.jhadler.net/" style=" text-decoration: underline;">http://www.jhadler.net</a></font></div>

<div id="sidebar_submenu_header" style="text-align: left; padding-bottom: 10px; padding-top: 40px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 1; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Publications</font></div>

<div id="published_title" style=" font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="fac_pub_title"><b>Eyes on a Climate Prize: Rewarding Energy Innovation to Achieve Climate Stabilization</b></span></font></div>

<div id="published_citation" style=" font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Peter S. Menell & Sarah M. Tran</b></font></div>

</b></font></div>

<div id="published_citation" style=" font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>casebook: </b><span style=" line-height: normal;">Founded in 1986, we are a leading international family publisher in economics, finance, business and management, law and public policy. We have successfully created a prestigious list with over 3000 titles in print, publishing over 300 new books a year.</span></font></div>

<p style="font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Specializing in research monographs, reference books and upper-level textbooks in highly focused areas, we are able to offer a unique service in terms of editorial, production and worldwide marketing.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We have three offices, <a class="purple_11_link" href="http://www.e-elgar.com/chelt.lasso" target="parent" style=" font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Cheltenham</a> and <a class="purple_11_link" href="http://www.e-elgar.com/cam.lasso" target="parent" style=" font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Camberley</a> in the UK and <a class="purple_11_link" href="http://www.e-elgar.com/usa.lasso" target="_parent" style=" font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Northampton</a>, MA, US.  <b>looks legit

</b></font></p>

</b>

</font><div id="published_title" style=" font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="fac_pub_title"><b>Learning How to Fish</b></span></font></div>

<div id="published_citation" style=" font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>(w/ Nathaniel Stewart)</b></font></div>

</b>

</font><div id="published_title" style=" font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><span class="fac_pub_title"><b>Conservative Principles for Environmental Reform</b></span></font></div>

<div id="published_citation" style=" font-weight: normal; text-align: left;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>23 Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 253 (2013) run by good woman?</b></font></div>

</div>

 </font>

<hr />

<p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">OIRA JG ~ Joe  Lieb; OIRA could ask agency to repeal laws; rejects 58 RR; 16 BC; 316 B2 2001 (CTT and trade gp input) 64  dioxin no safe level, but ok to spread on crops and parks 64  nrdc found 34-56 mill ppl had arnsenic; BC browner went for 10 ppb (CTT said pvt well shd do something if 5 ppb) but ~ 1oppb at epa; Rvoe and Karen Hughes ~  b/c NMex close election, backed by CEI arsenic "an essential ingredient" and good for us 67 CEI angela logomasini<b>  NAS backed Browner and B2 caved, also on other BC rules allowed, based by CEI Jon Adler. </b> strat ignor</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">PERC</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">POTUS TAKES ON WOTUS</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Wed, 03/01/2017</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It took the Obama administration many months to develop, propose, and promulgate its WOTUS rule, and it will take just as long to revise or undo it.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN THE ANTHROPOCENE</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Shawn Regan, James Huffman, Jonathan Adler, Mark Pennington, Linus Blomqvist, R. David Simpson, Robert K. Fleck, F. Andrew Hanssen, Gregg Simonds Thu, 10/20/2016</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A new volume aims to foster an engaging discussion about the future of environmental policy in this human-dominated era.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DYNAMIC ENVIRONMENTALISM AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT: LEGAL OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Thu, 10/20/2016</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Accounting for dynamic nature requires revisiting the underpinnings of environmental law and management.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ACCOUNTING FOR DYNAMIC NATURE</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Wed, 06/08/2016</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The environment is dynamic. Our regulatory state is not.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">wetlands</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT VICTORY FOR LANDOWNERS AT THE SUPREME COURT</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Tue, 05/31/2016</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Supreme Court unanimously concludes that jurisdictional determinations under the Clean Water Act may be challenged in federal court.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">REDEFINING THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Mon, 11/16/2015</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The EPA’s new water rule could discourage private conservation efforts.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pollution Confusion? | Jonathan Adler | Stossel 9.10.2014</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Pollution Confusion? | Jonathan Adler | Stossel 9.10.2014</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">POLLUTION CONFUSION | STOSSEL</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Thu, 10/09/2014</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">We make the mistake sometimes of assuming that the way you clean the environment is just adding another regulation. Watch as PERC senior fellow Jonathan Adler discusses the confusion about pollution and why he is unhappy with the EPA's new rules with John Stossel on Fox Business Network.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Watch Video ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">LEARNING HOW TO FISH</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler, Nathaniel Stewart Wed, 04/09/2014</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Ending the tragedy of the oceans: How property rights can save the world's fisheries.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CAN CONGRESS LEARN TO FISH?</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Fri, 02/21/2014</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Many environmental problems are exaggerated. The threats facing marine fisheries, however, are quite real. There is a growing consensus among fishery experts that greater reliance on private-property rights can prevent overfishing and ensure sustainability.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CLIMATE CHANGE GOES BACK TO COURT</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan Adler Tue, 10/15/2013</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. PERC's Jonathan Adler explains.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Read More ></font></p><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">This morning, the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/10/court-to-rule-on-greenhouse-gases/" style="">granted certiorari</a> in <em style="">Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA</em> concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This is quite significant. Although the grant is limited, it focuses on one of the most important legal questions raised by this litigation, and puts some of the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources in play.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Harvard’s Richard Lazarus comments:</font></p><blockquote style="margin: 1.28571em 30px;"><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Court’s jurisdictional ruling is significant in terms of both what the Court granted and did not grant</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">. The regulations the Court has agreed to review represent the Obama Administration’s first major rulemaking to address the emissions of greenhouse gases from major stationary sources across the country. At the same time, the Court declined to review EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare and therefore has left intact the government’s current regulation of motor vehicles emissions to address climate change.</span></font></p></blockquote><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I largely agree, but would go farther in certain respects.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Here’s some background (see also my prior posts </span><a href="http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/28/en-banc-petitions-in-d-c-circuit-greenhouse-gas-litigation/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">here </a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">and </span><a href="http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/28/climate-change-in-the-d-c-circuit/" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">here</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">). </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Various states, industry groups, and activist organizations had filed cert petitions – nine in total – and others filed amicus briefs (including <a href="http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/Judicial%20Education%20Project%20and%20Admin%20Law%20Professors%20Amici%20Curiae%20Br%20-%2012-1272.pdf" style="">yours truly</a>) urging the Court to take this case. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Court was asked to consider many different questions, but only agreed to consider one of its own devising. Specifically, the Court granted six of the nine petitions and agreed to consider the following question: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.” In other words, the Court wants to know whether the EPA was required to apply Section 165 and Title V of the Act to greenhouse gases once it regulated GHGs from motor vehicles. If not, the EPA need not have rewritten these portions of the Act to avoid the “absurd results” of applying these provisions to carbon dioxide.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">In my view, the grant is welcome, despite the limitations. Many of the questions for which industry sought review, such as whether the EPA properly considered the relevant scientific research or set permissible standards for vehicular emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, were not cert worthy. The issue embodied in the Court’s reformulated question presented, on the other hand, most definitely is.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> While I would have liked the Court to reconsider <em style="">Massachusetts v. EPA</em>, particularly given that decisions adoption of faulty premises about how the Clean Air Act works, such a grant would have been a heavy lift. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Court does not lightly reconsider its own statutory interpretations. This is still a welcome grant. (That’s my view, however, as I suspect Professor Lazarus disagrees.)</span></font></p><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So the Court will not reconsider <em>Mass v. EPA</em> in this case, but the question presented will force the Court to confront the consequences the <em>Mass</em> decision. In particular, this case will force the Court to reconsider the assumption made by Justice Stevens in <em>Mass v. EPA</em> that application of the Clean Air Act to GHGs would not produce absurd results. As we’ve since learned, applying the CAA to GHGs <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1783664" style="">does produce such results</a>, particularly if the regulation of GHGs under Section 202 requires regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act’s Title V and PSD provisions. These portions of the Act expressly require the EPA (and state permitting authorities) to regulate more facilities than it could ever hope to have the resources to regulate. The EPA has used this fact to justify rewriting the Act in its regulations, and so the Court’s grant presents the opportunity to question whether the EPA should have at least considered an alternative construction of the Act. In other words, the Court now has the opportunity to force the EPA (and the D.C. Circuit) to adopt an interpretation of the CAA that vindicates the Court’s interpretation in <em>Mass v. EPA</em> by avoiding the absurd results EPA’s approach has generated. We’ll see whether the Court actually takes that opportunity.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A final note. The D.C. Circuit rested portions of its decision below on the conclusion that industry petitioners lacked standing to pursue certain claims against the Timing and Tailoring rules limiting the application of Title V and the PSD provisions to stationary sources. It will be interesting to see whether the standing question is handled in the merits briefing. Stay tuned.</font></p><p style="margin: 1.28571em 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UPDATE: Here are additional perspectives from UCLA’s <a href="http://legal-planet.org/2013/10/15/supreme-court-grants-cert-on-one-aspect-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-suit/" style="">Ann Carlson</a> at LegalPlanet and RFF’s <a href="http://common-resources.org/2013/supreme-court-to-hear-key-epacarbon-case-but-only-on-narrow-grounds/" style="">Nathan Richardson</a>.</font></p><p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">==</font></p>

<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan H. Adler</font></h1>

<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Jonathan H. Adler</b> worked at the the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute" title="Competitive Enterprise Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> from 1991 to 2000; from 1995 to 1999 he was Director of Environmental Studies, where he directed CEI's environmental studies program which seeks to advance free market environmentalism. From August 2005 to July 2006 he is working as a Visiting Senior Scholar at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center" title="Mercatus Center">Mercatus Center</a>, Arlington, VA.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In 1998 and in 2004, he was the Broadbent research fellow at the<b> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Political_Economy_Research_Center" title="Political Economy Research Center" class="mw-redirect">Political Economy Research Center</a> in Bozeman, Montana. (PERC</b> is a think tank that focuses on developing market approaches to environmental and natural resource issues.) Currently, he is on the executive committee of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federalist_Society_Environmental_Law_and_Property_Rights_Practice_Group&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Federalist Society Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Group (page does not exist)">Federalist Society Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Group</a>, and on the editorial board of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Supreme_Court_Review&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cato Supreme Court Review (page does not exist)">Cato Supreme Court Review</a>, and advisory board of the<span style=" background-color: #FFF200;"> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Federation_of_Independent_Business&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Federation of Independent Business (page does not exist)">National Federation of Independent Business</a> (NFIB)</span> Legal Foundation. During the 2000-01 term, Professor Adler clerked for the Honorable <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_B._Sentelle&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David B. Sentelle (page does not exist)">David B. Sentelle</a> on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejhadler/moreabout.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://home.earthlink.net/_{jhadler/moreabout.html}" rel="nofollow">[1]</a><a href="http://law.case.edu/faculty/cv/adler.pdf" class="external autonumber" title="http://law.case.edu/faculty/cv/adler.pdf" rel="nofollow">[2]</a></font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">He is also associate professor of law and associate director of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Business_Law_and_Regulation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Center for Business Law and Regulation (page does not exist)">Center for Business Law and Regulation</a> at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Professor Adler is a contributing editor to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Review_Online" title="National Review Online" class="mw-redirect">National Review Online</a> and serves on the board of directors of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=America%27s_Future_Foundation" title="America's Future Foundation">America's Future Foundation</a>. He is also contributes irregularly to The Commons Blog: Markets Protecting the Environment and NRO's The Corner.</font></p>

<h2><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Contents</font></h2>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#Quotes"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Quotes</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#Adler_Publications"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Adler Publications</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#Adler_Books"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Adler Books</span></font></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#External_links"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">External links</span></font></a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2><span class="mw-headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Quotes</font></span></h2>

<dl>

<dd><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Government-enforced emissions limits of the sort contemplated under the <b>Kyoto Protocol would have a severe impact on American families.</b> Whether Kyoto leads to the imposition of energy taxes, supply controls, or some other form of regulatory strictures, the impact will be the same: higher prices for all goods and services that rely upon energy use." Taken from "Killing Kyoto Without Regrets," CEI Update, 10/9 <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" rel="nofollow">[3]</a></font></dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>"While the proposed global climate treaty will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it could increase air pollution of all kinds</b>. That's because energy-intensive industries seeking to avoid the restrictions are likely to migrate to Latin America, Asia and Africa, where industrial processes use more energy and emit more pollutants per unit of output." Taken from "Kyoto Madness" <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" rel="nofollow">[4]</a></font></dd>

</dl>

<h2><span class="mw-headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Adler Publications</font></span></h2>

<ul>

<li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,01215.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,01215.cfm" rel="nofollow">Killing Kyoto Without Regrets</a>", Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1 October 1 1998.</font></li>

<li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba240.html" class="external text" title="http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba240.html" rel="nofollow">Kyoto Madness</a>", <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis" title="National Center for Policy Analysis">National Center for Policy Analysis</a>, 29 September 1997.</font></li>

</ul>

<h2><span class="mw-headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Adler Books</font></span></h2>

<ul>

<li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006FCE8K/102-8935115-0800950?v=glance&n=283155" class="external text" title="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006FCE8K/102-8935115-0800950?v=glance&n=283155" rel="nofollow">Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America</a>".</font></li>

<li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02264.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02264.cfm" rel="nofollow">The Costs of Kyoto: Climate Change Policy and Its Implications</a>", Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1997.</font></li>

<li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02260.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02260.cfm" rel="nofollow">Ecology, Liberty and Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader</a>", Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000.</font></li>

</ul>

<h2><span class="mw-headline"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">External links</font></span></h2>

<ul>

<li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejhadler/" class="external text" title="http://home.earthlink.net/_jhadler/" rel="nofollow">Professor Adler's homepage</a>.</font></li>

<li><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src5" class="external text" title="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src5" rel="nofollow">Fact sheet: Jonathan H. Adler</a>, exxonsecrets.org.</font></li>

</ul>

<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law.</b>

<em>Online Contributing Editor, National Review. Former Director, Environmental Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute. 1998 Broadbent Fellow, Political Economy Research Center. </em>

Currently a law professor teaching free-market environmental law, Adler hosts his own free market oriented website at www.jhadler.net, and has written many articles against taking action against global warming.

B.A. 1991, Yale University. J.D. 2000, George Mason Univeristy.

 </font></p>

<h3><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">ORGANIZATIONS</font></h3>

<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2"><b>Competitive Enterprise Institute</b></a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src1">EWG Clean Air Policy Background Analysis 2/12/1997</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=62"><b><span style=" background-color: #FFF200;">PERC - Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research Center</span></b></a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src2">www.perc.org</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=33"><b>Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies</b></a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src3">Federalist Society website 4/04</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31"><b>Consumer Alert</b></a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src0">Independent Institute Website 3/04</a>

 </font></p>

<h3><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">SOURCES</font></h3>

<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a id="src" name="src"> </a><a id="src0" name="src0"> </a><b>Independent Institute Website 3/04</b>

<a href="http://www.independent.org">http://www.independent.org</a>

<a id="src1" name="src1"> </a><b>EWG Clean Air Policy Background Analysis 2/12/1997</b>

<a id="src3" name="src3"> </a><b>Federalist Society website 4/04</b>

 </font></p>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Think_tanks/personnel" title="Category:Think tanks/personnel">Think tanks/personnel</a></span> | <span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Environment" title="Category:Environment">Environment</a></span> | <span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:United_States" title="Category:United States">United States</a></span></font></div>

</div>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">no links</font>

<a href="http://volokh.com/author/jonathan/"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">http://volokh.com/author/jonathan/</font></a>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">adler</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Was a Scientific Journal Canned for Disagreeing with the IPCC?</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Jonathan H. Adler on January 20, 2014 12:51 pm in Climate Change, Politicizing Science</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Copernicus Publications, “the innovative open access publisher,” recently announced it was terminating one of its journals, Pattern Recognition in Physics due to concerns about the journal’s editorial practices.  PRP was not even one year old.  It seems the problems began when the journal’s editors agreed to a special issue on “Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,” in which the issue’s editors had the temerity to “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”[*]According to the original explanation offered by Martin Rasmussen of Copernicus Publications, as reported by JoNova, the expression of this conclusion was a motivating factor for the “drastic decision” to terminate a journal. A letter to one of the editors also expressed “alarm” that a paper in PRP would question the IPCC.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">If Copernicus indeed shuttered a journal because of disagreement with the conclusions expressed in a published paper, it would be quite shameful.  But is that what happened? In a revised statement, Rasmussen notes “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.” Whatever the merits of the papers at issue (and even some climate skeptics were unimpressed), it appears that PRP did violate accepted peer review norms in producing the special issue — as Anthony Watts details here — and concerns were raised about the journal last year.  So it appears Copernicus did have sufficient grounds to reconsider its production of PRP.  Given the wording of Rasmussen’s initial statement, however, questions remain about what prompted the publisher’s decision.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[* The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-sponsored, intergovernmental entity that produces periodic reports on climate change.]</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mann v. Steyn</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Jonathan H. Adler on August 22, 2012 4:59 pm in Climate Change, Defamation, Freedom of Speech</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Penn State climatologist Michael Mann, he of the infamous “Hockey stick” graph, is threatening to sue Mark Steyn and National Review for a blog post on NRO in which Steyn (quoting Rand Simberg) compared Penn State’s investigation of scientific misconduct allegations against Mann with the same university’s initial investigation of Jerry Sandusky and the Penn State football program. Steyn called Mann’s hockey-stick graph “fraudulent” and Penn State’s investigation of Mann’s conduct in the wake of the “ClimateGate” e-mail scandal, “a joke.”</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Steyn’s comments may have been over the top, but are they worth a lawsuit? Mann thinks so, and has threatened to sue if NRO does not remove the offending blog post.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A month later, the blog post is still there, and National Review is not backing down. Here’s the response from their lawyer, which notes (correctly in my view) that Mann is a public figure who would have to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that NR published “a provably false statement” with actual knowledge the statement was false or “reckless disregard” for the truth or falsity of the statement. Further, the letter notes, in order to defend itself NR would be entitled to seek discovery, and in the process obtain access to e-mails and other records that Mann has, thus far, resisted disclosing in various freedom-of-information suits prompted by ClimateGate. Writes NR editor Rich Lowry:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“I don’t bluff,” Mann’s lawyer told the Columbia Journalism Review in July. I think the folks at NR just called it.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Disclosure: I am a contributing editor to National Review Online, for which I write occasional articles and blog posts.]</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UPDATE: More from Steve Hayward and Mark Steyn.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">FURTHER UPDATE: Mann and his attorney’s respond. Says Mann, “We intend to file a lawsuit.” Grab the popcorn.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Volokh Conspiracy</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">opinion</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Whatever happened to Michael Mann’s defamation suit?</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Jonathan H. Adler December 2, 2015</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More than three years ago, Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann filed a defamation suit against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute over a few blog posts that criticized Mann in extremely colorful terms. The posts accused Mann of “molesting” data and compared PSU’s investigation of his alleged improprieties with its investigation of Jerry Sandusky. The posts at issues were not nice, to say the least. The key question for the courts was whether they were defamatory. Also at issue, however, are procedural issues that have dragged out the litigation.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The last time we checked in on the case, three of the defendants (all save Steyn) were seeking to appeal the trial court’s denial of their anti-SLAPP (anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit motion. Oral argument on this question before the D.C. Court of Appeals took place more than a year ago, and there’s still no word. Most other cases heard around that time have been decided, suggesting the court may be having some difficulty — perhaps because some of the judges are conflicted or the panel is split. This would be unfortunate because, in my view, the primary issues should be clear. Even folks who share Mann’s view of climate science (and his dim view of climate skeptics) recognize the danger of his suit (see, e.g., Dan Farber’s post at Legal Planet). In addition, a wealth of amici not particularly sympathetic to CEI or National Review ideologically nonetheless support their legal position.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">It is also worth noting that this is not the only case implicating D.C.’s anti-SLAPP law that has been sitting around, suggesting that the judges may be having a difficult time on this aspect of the case. In any event, one would think it would not take over a year to sort out these questions. Indeed, the extent to which this litigation has been drawn out makes a mockery of the D.C. anti-SLAPP law, which was intended to accelerate the resolution of speech-related suits so as to reduce their potential effect of chilling protected expression.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">For those wanting more background, I’ve blogged a fair amount about the case, and Ken White at Popehat has a series of informative posts as well. For a more colorful round-up, see Mark Steyn’s last post on the subject. (I don’t know what Michael Mann has said about the suit of late; he blocked me on Twitter.)</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">DISCLOSURE: As I’ve noted in prior posts on this case, I am a contributing editor at National Review Online, which means I have a fancier byline when I submit articles to the publication and occasionally contribute to The Corner and Bench Memos. It is not a salaried position. I also worked at CEI from 1991-2000 — many years before the events at issue in this litigation.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">‘I don’t bluff’</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Michael Mann’s lawyer says National Review must retract and apologize</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Curtis Brainard</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann is demanding that National Review retract and apologize for a July 15 post that compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the convicted child molester and former Penn State assistant football coach.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The post in question, by Mark Steyn, accused Mann of academic fraud, dredging up a discredited charge that emerged in 2009 following the leak of emails between Mann and other scientists, which critics claimed were evidence of data manipulation. Despite the fact that almost half a dozen investigations affirmed the integrity of Mann’s research, Steyn quoted a post from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) that referred to Mann’s work as Penn State’s “other scandal,” and read:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">CEI has deleted that and another sentence from its post, which was written by Rand Simberg, one of its “scholars,” calling them “inappropriate” in an editor’s note appended at the end. Steyn’s post remains unaltered, but in it he distanced himself from the Sandusky reference very slightly, writing, “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point.”</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In the minds of Simberg and Steyn, the numerous investigations that supported Mann were “just another cover-up and whitewash.”</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">In a letter sent Friday to Scott Budd, National Review’s executive publisher, Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams, called Steyn’s allegations defamatory:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Your allegation of academic fraud is false, and was clearly made with the knowledge that it was false….” Williams wrote. “And further, you draw the insidious comparison between Dr. Mann and Jerry Sandusky, who as you point out, was recently convicted of child molestation. This reference is simply outrageous and clearly subjects your publication to a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“Needless to say, we intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies on behalf of Dr. Mann.”</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Neither Budd nor National Review editor Rich Lowry returned calls requesting comment on Williams’s letter. Politico, one of the only major outlets to cover the altercation so far, didn’t fare much better, reporting that Lowry and Steyn failed to respond to its requests for comment.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Politico was, however, able to reach CEI’s Simberg. According to its article:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   Simberg, in an email to POLITICO, said his Sandusky comparison “was to the fact that the Penn State administration covered up Mann’s behavior in a similar manner, not in the behavior itself,” adding, “neither I or anyone was accusing [Mann] of child molestation.”?</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   Mann will have a difficult time winning any future lawsuit because he “has already made himself a public figure” and “neither I, nor Mark Steyn or anyone else have written anything actionable or false, as far as I know,” Simberg said.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   “I think he’s just blowing smoke in hopes of getting a cheap ‘apology.’ I guess if he does decide to come after me, I’ll crowd source a legal defense fund, or find someone to take it on pro bono. I suspect I’ll have no shortage of support,” Simberg said, stressing that he is speaking for himself and not CEI.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“This is not a bluff,” Williams said when asked about Simberg’s comment. “This is a very strong case. I’ve done a fair amount of libel and defamation work. I vet the cases pretty thoroughly before I take them, and I don’t bluff. We’re going to bring it unless they retract and apologize.”</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, knows a little something about what Mann is going through. In 2010 he sued Canada’s National Post newspaper for libel, citing four articles that he said sought to damage his reputation. The following year, he launched another suit against Tim Ball, a former geography professor at the University of Winnipeg, over an allegedly libelous article published by the Canada Free.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Both suits are ongoing and Weaver referred questions about them to his lawyer, Roger McConchie, who did not respond to requests for comment.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Weaver did say that scientists “don’t take these suits lightly,” and that they are a last resort when news outlets don’t respond to reasonable requests for retraction.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">“You have to realize that when you do science that is societally relevant, you’re going to get people who don’t like your results, and you’re going to get all sorts of people who are angry, but that’s the nature of the beast,” Weaver added. “Criticism is part of science, so you don’t just wantonly go around threatening lawsuits left, right, and center. But at some point, there’s a line that gets crossed…</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">So, I fully support Michael in his case against National Review. Deliberately enticing hatred of an individual by linking him to a child molester? This is unacceptable in a civil society, whatever your view on what freedom of the press is. I can’t believe that somebody would even write such nonsense.”</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Indeed, Mann has had to endure everything from witch hunts to death threats in order to defend his work, a battle that he described in his recently released book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, which was widely reviewed in the media.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Weaver was careful to point out that defamation goes both ways, however. According to blog reviews of the German media, in November, a German court ordered Stefan Rahmstorf, a climatologist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, to cease and desist from making misleading statements about a blogger who was critical of his work.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">More often than not, though, it is conservative/libertarian writers harassing climate scientists, and the low to which Simberg and Steyn stooped is certainly deplorable, if not unlawful.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Curtis Brainard writes on science and environment reporting. Follow him on Twitter @cbrainard.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Tags: climate change, Competitive Enterprise Institute, defamation, lawsuits, Mark Steyn, Michael Mann, National Review, science</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/michael_mann_national_review_m.php?page=all</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Mann v. Steyn — Popcorn Time</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">By Jonathan H. Adler on October 23, 2012 2:19 pm in Climate Change, Defamation, Freedom of Speech, Politicizing Science</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Climatologist Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” graph, has filed suit against National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for allegedly defamatory blog posts attacking Mann and his work. Dr. Mann has posted a release about the suit on his Facebook page. I’ll post links to the complaint once it’s on-line. In the meantime, here’s my prior post on the controversy.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Given that Dr. Mann is a public figure and a prominent participant in climate policy debates, and that debate over the soundness of the “hockey stick” graph continues, I am skeptical of this suit — and I say this as someone who believes human activity is contributing to climate change and supports appropriate policy responses. All sorts of outrageous charges are made all the time in the rough and tumble of the current climate debate, and many people forthrightly believe that Mann and others have cut corners in their scientific research. I think this will make it difficult for Mann to show that those involved acted with “reckless disregard” of the truth. I also doubt the courts will be too eager to police the word choices of polemical blog posts made by political commentators in the course of heated policy debates. Then again, I’m not being paid to offer a professional opinion on this matter, and Dr. Mann has retained prominent counsel. Stay tuned.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">[Disclosure: I am a contributing editor at National Review Online, for which I write occasional articles and blog posts, and I worked for CEI in the 1990s. I have not discussed the merits of this suit with anyone in either organization.]</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UPDATE: Here is Michael Mann’s complaint. BLT covers the story here.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">UPDATE: Mark Steyn responds here. Ken at Popehat comments here.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">popehat:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Michael Mann Sues NRO, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rand Simberg</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">October 23, 2012 by Ken White</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Back in July I noted that climate scientist Michael Mann had threatened to sue National Review, Mark Steyn, and others for vivid online criticism. Mann is the originator of the famed "hockey stick graph" of global warming data; he was accused of academic misconduct based on notorious hacked emails, but cleared by a Penn State investigation. Steyn quoted and linked to a post by Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the rhetorical thrust of which was that Penn State clearing Mr. Mann was no more credible than its clearing of Jerry Sandusky.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Yesterday the other shoe dropped and Mann sued NRO, CEI, Steyn, and Simberg in D.C. Superior Court for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress (or, as I prefer to call it, Butthurt in the First Degree). The Legal Times has posted the complaint. I've reviewed it, and have some initial thoughts.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">First, the complaint seems almost calculated to support likely conservative narratives about it. It's very heavy on arguments by authority, citing the National Science Foundation and Columbia Journalism Review and Discovery Magazine and others for its propositions that the defendants are simply wrong in their criticisms of Mr. Mann. It fairly drips with righteous indignation over the existence of persistent global warming deniers. Global warming skeptics have been asserting that the scientific establishment is hostile to any dissent on global warming; this complaint isn't going to dispel that impression.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Second, the complaint misconstrues hyperbolic rhetoric and statements of opinion as false statements of fact. “Merely rhetorical hyperbole" and "lusty and imaginative expression of . . . contempt" and "vigorous epithets" are generally treated as protected statements of opinion, not actionable statements of fact. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 17 (1990); Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 284-286 (1974). Here, many of the statements by Simberg or Steyn complained of are clearly hyperbole in the service of political opinion. For instance:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is patently not a statement of provable fact. No rational person could construe it to mean that Mann molested children like Sandusky. And data cannot be "molested and tortured" except in a stylized rhetorical sense.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Similarly:</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   Mann has become the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">   Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph, the very ringmaster o/the tree-ring circus.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The words "corrupt" and "disgraced" are exactly the sort of rhetoric that courts typically classify as opinion, not actionable statement of fact. Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 881 F.2d 1426, 1445 (8th Cir. 1989) (statement that plaintiff was "corrupt" was opinion, not statement of fact); DuBoff v. Playboy Enterprises Intern., Inc., 2007 WL 1876513 (D. Or., June 26, 2007, CIV.06 358 HA) ("The phrase 'disgraced academic' is similarly hyperbolic opinion."). The "ringmaster" language is a clear signal of political rhetoric, not an actionable false statement of fact. Similarly, though Mann complains that NRO characterized his research as "intellectually bogus" in its reaction to his lawsuit threat, "bogus" is also a classic term of opinion. Cooke v. United Dairy Farmers, Inc., 2005 WL 736246 (Ohio 2005) (reference to "bogus claims" was statement of opinion)</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">To have any chance of prevailing, Mann will have to establish that statements accusing him of scientific dishonesty must, even in the context of political opinion blogs, properly be interpreted as specific statements of fact, not statements of opinion. That's a tough burden. Courts focus on the context in evaluating whether statements should be interpreted as fact or opinion, and increasingly interpret internet rhetoric as opinion rather than fact.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Third, by filing in the District of Columbia, Mann has subjected himself to the District of Coumbia's relatively new anti-SLAPP statute. Mann might want to chat with Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder about that.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Fourth, in reading the complaint, and seeing how much of it attacks statements of opinion and asserts the inviolability of scientific consensus, I have to wonder whether Mann's aim is political debate by other means, not genuine redress of wrongs. The complaint reads like Mann is looking for a forum for a fight over global warming denial. He may find, to his chagrin, that most judges aren't up for providing a forum for such a fight. Moreover, I don't think a lawsuit is going to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded about the truth of global warming.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I look forward to covering this one more.</font>

<font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Edited to add: You should definitely consider the analysis of Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen in the comments.</font>

</div>

<hr />

<p id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">OIRA JG ~ Joe  Lieb; OIRA could ask agency to repeal laws; rejects 58 RR; 16 BC; 316 B2 2001 (CTT and trade gp input) 64  dioxin no safe level, but ok to spread on crops and parks 64  nrdc found 34-56 mill ppl had arnsenic; BC browner went for 10 ppb (CTT said pvt well shd do something if 5 ppb) but ~ 1oppb at epa; Rvoe and Karen Hughes ~  b/c NMex close election, backed by CEI arsenic "an essential ingredient" and good for us 67 CEI angela logomasini  NAS backed Browner and B2 caved, also on other BC rules allowed, based by CEI Jon Adler.  strat ignor

</p>

<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">Jonathan H. Adler</h1>

<p><b>Jonathan H. Adler</b> worked at the the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute" title="Competitive Enterprise Institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a> from 1991 to 2000; from 1995 to 1999 he was Director of Environmental Studies, where he directed CEI's environmental studies program which seeks to advance free market environmentalism. From August 2005 to July 2006 he is working as a Visiting Senior Scholar at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercatus_Center" title="Mercatus Center">Mercatus Center</a>, Arlington, VA.</p>

<p>

In 1998 and in 2004, he was the Broadbent research fellow at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Political_Economy_Research_Center" title="Political Economy Research Center" class="mw-redirect">Political Economy Research Center</a> in Bozeman, Montana. (PERC is a think tank that focuses on developing market approaches to environmental and natural resource issues.) Currently, he is on the executive committee of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federalist_Society_Environmental_Law_and_Property_Rights_Practice_Group&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Federalist Society Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Group (page does not exist)">Federalist Society Environmental Law and Property Rights Practice Group</a>, and on the editorial board of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Supreme_Court_Review&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Cato Supreme Court Review (page does not exist)">Cato Supreme Court Review</a>, and advisory board of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Federation_of_Independent_Business&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="National Federation of Independent Business (page does not exist)">National Federation of Independent Business</a> (NFIB) Legal Foundation. During the 2000-01 term, Professor Adler clerked for the Honorable <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_B._Sentelle&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="David B. Sentelle (page does not exist)">David B. Sentelle</a> on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejhadler/moreabout.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://home.earthlink.net/_{jhadler/moreabout.html}" rel="nofollow">[1]</a><a href="http://law.case.edu/faculty/cv/adler.pdf" class="external autonumber" title="http://law.case.edu/faculty/cv/adler.pdf" rel="nofollow">[2]</a>

He is also associate professor of law and associate director of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Business_Law_and_Regulation&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Center for Business Law and Regulation (page does not exist)">Center for Business Law and Regulation</a> at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.</p>

<p>

Professor Adler is a contributing editor to <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Review_Online" title="National Review Online" class="mw-redirect">National Review Online</a> and serves on the board of directors of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=America%27s_Future_Foundation" title="America's Future Foundation">America's Future Foundation</a>. He is also contributes irregularly to The Commons Blog: Markets Protecting the Environment and NRO's The Corner.</p>

<h2>Contents</h2>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#Quotes"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Quotes</span></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#Adler_Publications"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Adler Publications</span></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#Adler_Books"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Adler Books</span></a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jonathan_H._Adler#External_links"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">External links</span></a></li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2><span class="mw-headline">Quotes</span></h2>

<dl>

<dd>"Government-enforced emissions limits of the sort contemplated under the <b>Kyoto Protocol would have a severe impact on American families.</b> Whether Kyoto leads to the imposition of energy taxes, supply controls, or some other form of regulatory strictures, the impact will be the same: higher prices for all goods and services that rely upon energy use." Taken from "Killing Kyoto Without Regrets," CEI Update, 10/9 <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" rel="nofollow">[3]</a></dd>

</dl>

<dl>

<dd><b>"While the proposed global climate treaty will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it could increase air pollution of all kinds</b>. That's because energy-intensive industries seeking to avoid the restrictions are likely to migrate to Latin America, Asia and Africa, where industrial processes use more energy and emit more pollutants per unit of output." Taken from "Kyoto Madness" <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353" rel="nofollow">[4]</a></dd>

</dl>

<h2><span class="mw-headline">Adler Publications</span></h2>

<ul>

<li>Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,01215.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,01215.cfm" rel="nofollow">Killing Kyoto Without Regrets</a>", Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1 October 1 1998.</li>

<li>Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba240.html" class="external text" title="http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba240.html" rel="nofollow">Kyoto Madness</a>", <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis" title="National Center for Policy Analysis">National Center for Policy Analysis</a>, 29 September 1997.</li>

</ul>

<h2><span class="mw-headline">Adler Books</span></h2>

<ul>

<li>Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006FCE8K/102-8935115-0800950?v=glance&n=283155" class="external text" title="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006FCE8K/102-8935115-0800950?v=glance&n=283155" rel="nofollow">Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America</a>".</li>

<li>Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02264.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02264.cfm" rel="nofollow">The Costs of Kyoto: Climate Change Policy and Its Implications</a>", Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1997.</li>

<li>Jonathan H. Adler, "<a href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02260.cfm" class="external text" title="http://www.cei.org/gencon/026,02260.cfm" rel="nofollow">Ecology, Liberty and Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader</a>", Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000.</li>

</ul>

<h2><span class="mw-headline">External links</span></h2>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ejhadler/" class="external text" title="http://home.earthlink.net/_jhadler/" rel="nofollow">Professor Adler's homepage</a>.</li>

<li><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src5" class="external text" title="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src5" rel="nofollow">Fact sheet: Jonathan H. Adler</a>, exxonsecrets.org.</li>

</ul>

<p><b>Assistant Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law.</b>

<em>Online Contributing Editor, National Review. Former Director, Environmental Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute. 1998 Broadbent Fellow, Political Economy Research Center. </em>

B.A. 1991, Yale University. J.D. 2000, George Mason Univeristy.

 </p>

<h3>ORGANIZATIONS</h3>

<p><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2"><b>Competitive Enterprise Institute</b></a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src1">EWG Clean Air Policy Background Analysis 2/12/1997</a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src2">www.perc.org</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=33"><b>Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies</b></a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src3">Federalist Society website 4/04</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=31"><b>Consumer Alert</b></a>

Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=353#src0">Independent Institute Website 3/04</a>

 </p>

<h3>SOURCES</h3>

<p><a id="src" name="src"> </a><a id="src0" name="src0"> </a><b>Independent Institute Website 3/04</b>

<a href="http://www.independent.org">http://www.independent.org</a>

<a id="src1" name="src1"> </a><b>EWG Clean Air Policy Background Analysis 2/12/1997</b>

<a id="src3" name="src3"> </a><b>Federalist Society website 4/04</b>

 </p>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>: <span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Think_tanks/personnel" title="Category:Think tanks/personnel">Think tanks/personnel</a></span> | <span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:Environment" title="Category:Environment">Environment</a></span> | <span dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Category:United_States" title="Category:United States">United States</a></span></div>

</div>

</div>