steyn bak 2

oops see other bak

this is text but all here html : now-greatly-diminished

steyn919

ymail

Marc Morano

Weekly update ⋅ July 7, 2023

NEWS

White House reportedly open to blocking the sun in fight against climate change - YouTube

YouTube

ClimateDepot.com publisher Marc Morano reacts to a White House report signaling the openness to block sunlight in the fight against climate change ...

Time Is Running Out!!! - SteynOnline

SteynOnline

First up is Marc Morano with an American take on HM The King's new climate doomsday clock. Marc is followed by Kathy Gyngell of The Conservative ...

Fox News goes full chemtrails: 'The government will control the weather and you will be happy'

Raw Story

Climate change denier Marc Morano blasted the proposal. "This is radical, risky, unproven, unknown effects, but they're doing it as a sort of ...

Biden admin violated president's emissions tracking EO during climate conference trips, GAO says

Just The News

Climate Depot founder Marc Morano responded to Just the News' request for comment and said he was unsurprised to learn the U.S.' emissions for ...

Data Disproves WaPo Myth Americans Die of Heat Than Other Weather

NewsRadio 740 KTRH

Cold temperatures, by an order of magnitude of 10-to-1, seven-to-ten times any heat deaths, kill people," says Marc Morano at the Climate Depot.

No One's Taking Your Pizza Away, Even For The Climate Or Your Neighbors' Lungs

Daily Kos

... but also got Marc Morano to publish an op-ed on the topic. Not to be outdone, "On June 27, Fox aired 52 minutes discussing the Post's pizza ...

You'd have to burn a pizza oven for 849 years to equal 1 trip on Lurch's private jet - HotAir

HotAir

You'd have to burn a pizza oven for 849 years to equal 1 trip on Lurch's private jet. Marc Morano from NY Post 8:25 PM on July 02, 2023.

Biden Considered Plan to Block Out the Sun to Stop Climate Change - MRCTV

MRCTV

ClimateDepot.com Publisher Marc Morano voiced a similar take in an interview with Fox News, noting that proposals for blocking out the sun date ...

Mark Steyn, the best broadcaster Britain hasn't got - The Conservative Woman

The Conservative Woman

Sandwiched between interviews with Marc Morano, author of Green Fraud and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change and James Melville, ...

---

foxic public cit

:{:{Mark Steyn is a Canadian author and columnist of SteynOnline.com. Steyn attended the King Edward’s School in Birmingham, U.K., leaving in 1978 when he was 18 years old. Steyn is often a featured speaker at climate denial conferences hosted by groups such as the CO2 Coalition, The New Criterion and the Heartland Institute.}:

These events, with titles such as The Climate Surprise: Why CO2 Is Good for the Earth and the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change, are funded by Exxon Mobil, DonorsTrust and the Koch Brothers. He is infamously known for attacking Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” graph, which predicted a sharp rise in global temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased. He went on to call Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” and claim he “has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and the planet.” }:

While a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” on April 22, Steyn deflected the climate crisis while claiming Democrats merely use it as a platform to appeal to voters. “Climate change is essentially a boutique issue, it’s almost like an accessory for Western liberal politicians to flaunt how much they care while actually doing nothing about the people and the jurisdictions for which they’re actually responsible.”

---

see fox tucker carlson, morph from denier to trump islamophobe

fail up? early phase of pension plan (safety net like james o'keefe gets free lawyer)

12/15 promoted to primary, cruz sci comm testimony

capt 914

gone for a while?

Steyn, who has guest-hosted “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News as well as Rush Limbaugh’s radio show,

he has a cruise

"A Disgrace To The Profession"

The World's Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science

Volume I

Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn, with illustrations by Josh

Price $19.95; Club Member Price $14.95

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.

Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred ...because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany's Institute for Coastal Research

Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.

Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

The defamation suit against Steyn by Michael E Mann, inventor of the global-warming "hockey stick", is about to enter its seventh year at the DC Superior Court - which means Mark has a lot of case research lying around and he can't wait forever for the trial to start. So he figured he'd put some of it in a new book, now available from SteynOnline.

In the fall of 2014, not a single amicus brief was filed on Dr Mann's behalf, not one. He claims he's "taking a stand for science", but evidently science is disinclined to take a stand for him.

That got Mark curious as to what actual scientists think of Mann, his famous hockey stick, and his other work. So he started looking - and the result is a rollicking collection of insights into Big Climate's chief enforcer by scientists from around the world, from Harvard to Helsinki, Prague to Princeton, with commentary from Steyn telling the story of the rise to global celebrity of one Mann and his stick.

Advance praise for Steyn's new book!

"Most people would refrain from adding fuel to the fire if being sued by someone for attacking them. Steyn, however, is not most people."

Daily Kos

"I’m thinking this is not going to be a very big book. Certainly not a very good one."

Greg Mann-Laden, Science Blogs

"Mark Steyn's genius legal gambit... Who’s to say what’s right or wrong, when your IQ could easily be the losing team’s score in a baseball game?"

Barry Bickmore, Climate Asylum

"A Disgrace To The Profession": The World's Scientists In Their Own Words On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick, And Their Damage To Science - Volume I will be available in print and eBook from Amazon and all the usual outlets, but you can make sure you're the first on your block with this must-read book by ordering your copy now exclusively from the SteynOnline bookstore for immediate shipping. And as always Mark will be happy to autograph it personally for you or your warm-mongering loved one.

https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession34-Mark-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330

stockade books

What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?

Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to know

Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn't want you to knowPaperback

Gregory Wrightstone

4.7 out of 5 stars353

$17.71

The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won't Hear From Al Gore--And Others

The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won't Hear From Al Gore--And OthersPaperback

Joe Bastardi

4.5 out of 5 stars183

$14.95

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides)Paperback

Marc Morano

4.5 out of 5 stars228

Climate Change: The Facts

Climate Change: The FactsPaperback

J.Abbot

4.4 out of 5 stars579

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/far-right-tucker-carlson-guest-given-airtime-to-rage-against-godless-and-post-christian-france-after-notre-dame-fire/

After surviving everything from two world wars to the French Revolution to the Black Plague of the 1340s-1350s, the historic Medieval cathedral, Notre Dame de Paris, was rocked by a major blaze on Monday. The fire has been extinguished, although the building suffered extensive damage and will need to be rebuilt. And when he appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News on Monday night, far-right pundit Mark Steyn used the fire as an opportunity to insult France as a “godless” and “post-Christian” society that is being overtaken by Muslims.

Steyn, who has guest-hosted “Tucker Carlson Tonight” on Fox News as well as Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, told Carlson, “Christendom is in retreat in Europe, and in France particularly. France has actually quite an aggressive belief in secularism, and according to some polls, the French are—even by the standards of the modern Western world—among the most godless people.”

Steyn went on to describe the Basilica of St. Denis north of Paris as “a Christian museum in the heart of what is now a Muslim suburb, in effect.” And he claimed that at Notre Dame Cathedral, Christianity is not a “living, breathing faith” but rather, “is just becoming, actually, a museum, an art gallery, a storage facility.”

Speaking to Carlson, Steyn had a hard time pinpointing exactly why France is mourning the damage at Notre Dame. Steyn told Carlson, “The French who were on the streets in tears this evening on the streets of Paris—I don’t think they’re mourning just history or architecture or art or culture. They are mourning something else. But what that something else, post-Christian France—can’t quite identify it. That’s really the conundrum.”

Steyn added that when French President Emmanuel Macron “says we’re going to rebuild it—rebuild it for what? When people talk about, ‘Oh, the heart of France has died’—what is in the soul of France? What is this? Is it just the building or something more?”

The notion that Muslims are overrunning western countries with the help of secular liberals has been a recurring theme in Steyn’s books, which include 2006’s “America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It” and 2011’s “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon.”

Watch the video below:

omg wiki chris hitchens?!

America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It is a 2006 non-fiction book by the Canadian newspaper columnist and writer Mark Steyn. It forecasts the downfall of Western civilization due to internal weaknesses and Muslim population growth in Western countries and the world generally.

1 Overview

2 Critical reception

3 Human rights complaints

4 See also

5 Notes

6 References

7 External links

Overview

America Alone is set in the context of the global war on terror. Steyn argues that "much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive the twenty-first century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most European countries."[1]

Steyn attributes the forecast fall of the Western world to three factors:

Demographic decline, based on the observation that European nations have low birth rates while Muslim nations have higher birth rates. Specifically, in recent years the population of the developed world declined from about 30% of world population to around 20%, while the population of Muslim nations increased from about 15% to 20%.[2]

The unsustainability of the advanced Western social-democratic state, based on the thesis that the responsibilities of normal adults, such as care of the elderly, childcare, health care and insurance, have been slowly taken over by the state. Steyn argues that these programs erode humanity's basic sense of self-reliance to a point at which a more resilient group of people — Muslims in his view — will take control.

The exhaustion of civilization. Steyn argues that Western nations are so focused on moral and cultural relativism—with "diversity" and "racism" as their new favorite words—that they are unable to see that their existence is threatened. Specifically, he argues that European nations have given up defending themselves and rely on America for their defense. He views anti-Americanism as a symptom of civilizational exhaustion, whether manifested by Muslims (to whom America symbolizes gay porn, children born out of wedlock, immodest women, and immorality) or by Europeans (to whom America symbolises a crude and radical Christianity, fat rednecks and uncontrolled firearms). However, in his view America is the most benign hegemonic power the world has ever seen. According to Steyn, America will be the last and only country—as all others will be taken over by Muslims—that will retain its sense of self-preservation, but this is not a given, as America's enemies know that it ran from Vietnam and they hope that America will continue to flee when faced with a challenge.

Steyn's final argument is that the Muslim world will not need to carry out an outright attack. Instead, Europe will collapse from "wimpiness" or "multicultural 'sensitivity,'" leading to betrayal of the state's core values. Thus, during the Danish 'cartoon jihad' of 2006, Jack Straw, then British foreign secretary, hailed the 'sensitivity' of Fleet Street in not reprinting the offending representations of the Prophet."[3]

Steyn dismisses the danger of climate change, The Population Bomb, The Limits to Growth, and nuclear winter.[citation needed]

Critical reception

Christopher Hitchens reviewed the book with praise, and describes it as "an admirably tough-minded book."[4] Hitchens goes on in his review and states:

Mark Steyn's book is essentially a challenge to the bien-pensants among us: an insistence that we recognize an extraordinary threat and thus the possible need for extraordinary responses. He need not pose as if he were the only one with the courage to think in this way.

"Facing the Islamist Menace". city-journal.org. City Journal (New York City). 2015-12-23. Winter 2007

The British novelist Martin Amis also reviewed the book in The Times and hailed Steyn as the "great sayer of the unsayable" but goes on to state:

I continue to hope that his admonitions will gain some momentum, despite the efforts of his prose style to impede it.[5]

The book was read by President of the United States George W. Bush who also gave copies to his White House staff.[6] According to Steyn it was also read by Democrat vice-presidential nominee Joe Lieberman, Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar, British politician and prominent Brexit campaigner Michael Gove who also reviewed the book for The Spectator:

That many of Steyn's conclusions will be unpalatable to the European consensus only underlines how much a failure to face harsh truths has characterised the European response to the scale of the terrorist threat we face.[7]

Daniel Johnson in his criticism of the theory of the West's decline referred to America Alone stating:

On Europe, Steyn is as damning as he is persuasive: from demographic suicide to the abdication of self-defence, he conducts a forensic analysis of the hollowing out of the high culture for which the Continent was still respected a generation ago.[8]

Canadian newspaper publisher and author, Conrad Black in his review of Steyn's follow-up book After America: Get Ready for Armageddon referred to America Alone as extolling

...America’s heroic status as the chief and only plausible resister to the degeneration of the West and the endless primitive depredations of militant Islam, carried out with the mischievous connivance of a greedy and malevolent China.[9]

Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting criticized the book as "inarguably Islamophobic," [10] and author Suhayl Saadi in the Independent referred to it as "hysterical".[11] Academic, Nasar Meer wrote that the book was, "Remarkably similar to anxieties over western decline in the late 19th century."[12]

Steyn himself has written on the tenth anniversary of its publication writing: "This is the biggest story of our time, and, ten years on, the west's leaders still can't talk about it, not to their own peoples, not honestly....I'm glad I brought up the subject. And it's well past time for others to speak out".[13]

Human rights complaints

Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine were filed in December 2007 by Mohamed Elmasry of the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Maclean's magazine was accused of publishing eighteen Islamophobic articles between January 2005 and July 2007. The articles in question included a column by Mark Steyn titled "The Future Belongs to Islam", an excerpt from America Alone[14].The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) called the piece "flagrantly Islamophobic", stating that it subjected Canadian Muslims to "hatred and contempt".[15]

The CIC approached Macleans and asked for "equal space" to publish a response, specifically "not a little letter to the editor". Macleans refused.

The CIC responded by filing a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It brought an ally, the Ontario Federation of Labour, with its 700,000 members, to put pressure on all relevant parties, including Macleans' parent company.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal heard the complaint in June 2008 and issued a ruling on October 10, 2008 dismissing the complaint. The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the federal complaint on June 26, 2008 without referring the matter to a tribunal.

The case has been cited as a motivating factor in the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

See also[

icon Books portal

Conservatism portal

The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

The Death of the West

Eurabia

Danish cartoon controversy

Jack Straw

Reflections on the Revolution in Europe

Niall Ferguson

Christopher Caldwell

Londonistan: How Britain is Creating a Terror State Within

While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West From Within

Human rights complaints against Maclean's magazine

Note

After America: Get Ready For Armageddon] | C-SPAN.org

https://www.c-span.org/video/?301129-1/after-america-ready-armageddon

Aug 21, 2011 - Mark Steyn argued that the United States is destined for financial collapse and a decline in its role as a world leader if current political and ...

https://www.alternet.org/tucker-carlson-e-pluribus-unum-diversity

Friday, Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson provoked outrage with a segment in which he questioned the value of diversity as a "strength" in American society.

On Monday, Carlson doubled down, and inexplicably, he chose to cite "E Pluribus Unum," the original de facto motto of the United States, as proof of his thesis that diversity is bad.

"'Out of many, one,' a country in which our differences mean less than our common identity as Americans," Carlson said. "For centuries, this was the source of our national strength. Then, a few decades ago, that changed. With no vote or even an acknowledgement, our elites jettisoned the old motto and adopted a new one: 'Diversity is our strength.'"

"The new slogan seemed to have the opposite meaning from the ones the founders wrote," he continued. "Our differences, they begin telling us, are now the single most important thing about us. The less alike we are, the better. Now, it's possible that is true, that disunity somehow makes us stronger. What's striking is that nobody has ever bothered to explain exactly how." [vid?] Carlson's argument makes no sense whatsoever. For one thing, "E Pluribus Unum" has nothing to do with our racial or ethnic identity; it simply means that from the original thirteen states, one nation is forged. This is driven home by the fact that the motto is thirteen characters long.

For another, Carlson can't seem to provide a source for when exactly America changed its motto to "diversity is our strength," because it never did (Congress did, however, establish "In God We Trust" as the official motto during the second Red Scare).

On the other hand, America has always been a nation of immigrants, and the obsessive desire of certain elements of the population to keep the nation as homogenous as possible has lead to far more misery, public strife, and violence than anyone arguing we should all simply coexist.

Carlson has increasingly used his time slot to express overt racism. His show has promoted white nationalist conspiracy theories about South African farm attacks, and his frequent guest Mark Steyn has argued that Hispanic schoolchildren aren't American because "the border has moved north."

https://www.mediamatters.org/people/mark-steyn

mma tag

Fox guest Mark Steyn suggests that people with disabilities who are "a cost on the public purse" shouldn't be able to immigrate

August 8, 2018 10:03 AM EDT

Tucker Carlson joins guest in slut-shaming Stormy Daniels, defending Rudy Giuliani's comments denigrating porn stars

Video ››› June 7, 2018 9:10 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFf

Tucker Carlson and guest complain that you can “unleash the blizzard of ‘F’ and ‘C’ words” on conservatives but not minorities

Video ››› May 31, 2018 9:09 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

Tucker Carlson guest calls the White House Correspondents' Dinner "the death of comedy"

Video ››› April 30, 2018 9:04 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

Tucker Carlson guest: "Multiculturalism lets you decide which side of the war you want to be on, whether you want to be on the home team, or the away team"

Video ››› April 23, 2018 8:43 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAF

Tucker Carlson Tonight guest on Muslim immigrants: "You can't take Mohammed, stick a blond wig on him ... and turn him into a Swede"

Video ››› April 18, 2018 8:45 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

On Fox News, Mark Steyn promotes “stunningly racist” anti-immigrant French novel

Blog ››› April 2, 2018 10:23 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

In his April 2 appearance on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, Mark Steyn praised Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, a novel described by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a “favorite racist fantasy of the anti-immigrant movement” and “revered by American white supremacists.” Steyn claimed the novel “actually predicted what is happening before our eyes.” The novel describes “an invasion of France and the white Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees.”

Steyn previously cited the racist novel in a prior appearance on Fox News, when he asked if The Camp of the Saints was “playing out simply incrementally with smaller boats” across Europe.

MARK STEYN: There was a French novel published 45 years ago --

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Yeah.

STEYN: -- by Jean Raspail, “The Camp of the Saints.” A lot of people on the left don't like it, but it actually predicted what is happening before our eyes. A bunch of people got in a ship in India and sailed for the south of France in this novel, and all of the media commented, like the CNN guy you just quoted, ‘what is the big deal about this? We are the ones -- we are the sinful ones. We are the ones who have the stain of all of the wicked ‘-isms’ on our past, imperialism, colonialism, racism, these people are the virtuous ones, let them in and they will redeem us.’

CARLSON: Do you ever get the impression you’ve been softened up for this exact moment? That people have been telling you to shut up and obey, and that you have no moral standard, and you’re not allowed to give your opinion -- basically, so we get to the moment where you can just be told to step aside, and let people come in, in your place?

From the SPLC summary of The Camp of the Saints (emphasis added):

A French novel, The Camp of the Saints, has become the favorite racist fantasy of the anti-immigrant movement in the US. Published by The Social Contract Press, the book is revered by American white supremacists.

Le Camp des Saints, a 1973 novel by Frenchman Jean Raspail, was first translated into English as The Camp of the Saints in 1975. It has been published a total of five times in the United States, most recently by The Social Contract Press (TSCP), an outfit that specializes in hard-line anti-immigration propaganda.

The book is a racist fantasy about an invasion of France and the white Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees, "a haunting and prophetic vision," TSCP says, "of Western Civilization overrun by a burgeoning Third World population."

The book characterizes non-whites as horrific and uncivilized "monsters" who will stop at nothing to greedily and violently seize what rightfully belongs to the white man.

HuffPo: This Stunningly Racist French Novel Is How Steve Bannon Explains The World

Previously:

Fox News guest host on refugees: "Life's a beach and then the people that are going to kill your civilization wash up on it"

Radio Host Mark Steyn: "The More Muslims You Have, The More Terrorism You Have"

Tucker Carlson guest defends white supremacists and claims that Hispanics in Arizona represent the end of American society

Tucker Carlson joins smear campaign attacking Obama portrait artist

Video ››› February 12, 2018 9:40 PM EST ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

319

Tucker Carlson guest defends white supremacists and claims that Hispanics in Arizona represent the end of American society

Video ››› January 18, 2018 8:53 PM EST ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

789

For months, pundits have called Trump a populist, but his policies have been about giveaways to the rich

Research ››› August 31, 2017 3:30 PM EDT ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

260

Several media outlets are suggesting that President Donald Trump’s August 30 speech calling for tax reform was a “populist pitch,” and dozens of media figures and outlets have been calling the president a “populist” since his inauguration. A closer examination of Trump’s policies, however, show a pattern of decisions that will create devastating impacts on Americans, particularly low-income residents, while providing handouts to corporations and the wealthiest citizens.

Fox News guest host on refugees: "Life's a beach and then the people that are going to kill your civilization wash up on it"

Video ››› August 10, 2017 9:08 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

764

Right-wing media figures and online bots are going after “weak, spineless” Mitch McConnell

Research ››› August 9, 2017 8:49 PM EDT ››› DINA RADTKE & NICK FERNANDEZ

103

Right-wing media condemnation reached a fever pitch on August 9 after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) commented that President Donald Trump had “excessive expectations” for health care reform, which many Trump loyalists in the conservative mediasphere interpreted as an attack on the president. In response, Trump sycophants along with online bots and trolls used their platforms to besmirch McConnell’s character, call for him to retire, and popularize the hashtag #DitchMitch on Twitter.

Fringe media and Fox News push conspiracy theories regarding arrested former House IT staffer

Research ››› July 28, 2017 12:18 PM EDT ››› ALEX KAPLAN & BRENDAN KARET

467

Following the arrest of former Democratic information technology staffer Imran Awan, far-right media and Fox News pushed multiple conspiracy theories about him, suggesting he was behind WikiLeaks getting hacked Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, that he had damaging information on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and that the Clintons were somehow involved in the situation.

Fox News Guest Criticizes 9/11 Hijacking Victims: “They Did Not Act As Freethinking Individuals”

Video ››› May 4, 2017 9:34 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

216

Media Praise Trump For Ordering Missile Attack On Syrian Airbase

Research ››› April 7, 2017 3:01 PM EDT ››› JARED HOLT

1356

Media figures and pundits celebrated President Donald Trump’s “swift, decisive” order to destroy a Syrian airbase in retaliation for what is believed to be a chemical warfare attack against Syrian rebels that killed dozens of people, including children. Pundits praised Trump’s “readiness to act on instinct” and declared that Trump “made Americans proud.”

Radio Host Mark Steyn: "The More Muslims You Have, The More Terrorism You Have"

Video ››› September 19, 2016 9:36 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/04/02/fox-news-mark-steyn-promotes-stunningly-racist-anti-immigrant-french-novel/219824

his April 2 appearance on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight, Mark Steyn praised Jean Raspail’s The Camp of the Saints, a novel described by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a “favorite racist fantasy of the anti-immigrant movement” and “revered by American white supremacists.” Steyn claimed the novel “actually predicted what is happening before our eyes.” The novel describes “an invasion of France and the white Western world by a fleet of starving, dark-skinned refugees.”

Steyn previously cited the racist novel in a prior appearance on Fox News, when he asked if The Camp of the Saints was “playing out simply incrementally with smaller boats” across Europe.

[vid]

MARK STEYN: There was a French novel published 45 years ago --

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Yeah.

From the SPLC summary of The Camp of the Saints (emphasis added):

The book characterizes non-whites as horrific and uncivilized "monsters" who will stop at nothing to greedily and violently seize what rightfully belongs to the white man.

HuffPo: This Stunningly Racist French Novel Is How Steve Bannon Explains The World

Previously:

Fox News guest host on refugees: "Life's a beach and then the people that are going to kill your civilization wash up on it"

Radio Host Mark Steyn: "The More Muslims You Have, The More Terrorism You Have"

Tucker Carlson guest defends white supremacists and claims that Hispanics in Arizona represent the end of American society

OMG CRUZ SCI COMM

Climate-denying arguments by Ted Cruz at a Senate committee hearing last year have been soundly debunked by a new study published in the Journal of Climate. Testimony at the hearing attacked climate change by using cherry-picked satellite temperature data allegedly inconsistent with global warming. The paper found errors in this analysis that refutes the bogus claims.

In the midst of the Texas senator's stillborn run for nomination as the Republican presidential candidate, he used his position as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness to convene a hearing entitled, "Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth's Climate."Hand-picked witnesses included noted climate skeptics John Christy, Judith Curry, conservative author Mark Steyn and Princeton University's William Harper. Harper was caught up in a sting operation by Greenpeace last year when he agreed to write a paper that, he was told, would be paid for by an unnamed Middle Eastern oil and gas company that wanted the payments to remain undisclosed.

liar for steyn: grossman and rivkin

baker HOSTETLER

Washington Square, Suite

1100

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 861

1770

agrossman@bakerlaw.com

Mark Steyn Invokes Image Of Terrorists “Sawing Bernie Sanders’ Head Off” To Attack Sanders For Linking Climate Change To Terrorism. On the November 16 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co., conservative pundit Mark Steyn mocked Sen. Bernie Sanders’ broadly accurate comments linking climate change to the rise of ISIS by declaring: “[ISIS leader] al-Baghdadi will be sawing Bernie Sanders’ head off, and he’ll be saying as his neck is being sliced, ‘If only we’d had an emissions trading scheme.'”

While the eyes of the world are on Paris, where nations are hammering out an agreement to do something about the reality of climate change, the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness once again held a hearing on Tuesday to debate whether climate change is for real. Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who is running for his party’s presidential nomination, convened the hearing titled “Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth’s climate.”

Senator Cruz opened the hearing with some ironic remarks. “This is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. Now, this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and we’re hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretations, their analysis of the data and the evidence. Now, I am the son of two mathematicians—two computer programmers and scientists—and I believe that public policy should follow the actual science, and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence.”Senator Cruz brought in four witnesses to testify, mostly chosen from the usual suspects that have participated in similar hearings in the past. There were two of the very small handful of climate scientists who express doubts about human responsibility for climate change—Georgia Tech professor and blogger Judith Curry and John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-tank, was also invited to speak. The fourth person brought in to talk climate science was conservative radio host and columnist Mark Steyn. (The last two were keynote speakers at this year’s Heartland Institute conference for climate “skeptics.”)

John Christy, who has helped develop the UAH satellite temperature dataset favored by climate “skeptics” because it shows slower warming in portions of the troposphere than we see in surface records, made his pitch for why we just don’t know what has caused recent warming. That explanation involved highlighting his graph of tropical mid-troposphere (rather than global surface) model projections and observations that frequently appears in the comments on stories like this one—a graph other climate scientists take issue with—and claiming that emissions cuts would have a minimal impact on climate change. While claiming that research funding is biased, he proposed setting aside five to 10 percent of federal climate research funding for a “Red Team” like the CIA section tasked with outside-the-box analyses that challenge the status quo. This Red Team would “produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses” for climate change.

Judith Curry echoed Christy’s complaints, claiming that climate science has fallen victim to “groupthink”—a conclusion she says she reached after reading the quote-mined “Climategate” e-mails between scientists in 2009. (A pile of subsequent independent investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.) The rest of Curry’s testimony entailed claims that the science of anthropogenic climate change is unsettled, which she has spoken and written about at length over the years.

Mark Steyn’s testimony focused on his accusations that climate science is fraudulent and oppresses contrarians. Steyn’s claim to climate fame is that he’s being sued for defamation by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann, whom Steyn has repeatedly accused of fraud.

William Happer used most of his time to argue that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are good for the planet, claiming that there is “not much dispute” that there is too little CO2 and too much oxygen for plants right now. He also seemed to like Christy’s “Red Team” idea, as he said climate science lacks an “adversarial process” to check if the science is right. (Of course, “an adversarial process” isn’t a bad description of peer review or the work of thousands of independent researchers.) “I would like to argue very strongly that we set aside some fraction of funding for climate research that is designed to be for the other side,” Happer said. That would run counter to the way funding is granted today, which is based on the hypothesis and the quality of the test rather than what the resulting conclusion is going to be.

Happer became a story in his own right earlier in the day, when Greenpeace released e-mails with Happer in which they had pretended to represent a foreign energy company. They asked Happer if he would produce a report extolling the virtues of CO2 but without disclosing their financial support, and Happer agreed this was something he could do. Happer explained that Peabody Coal Company had paid him $8,000 to testify at regulatory hearings in Minnesota. That fee went to the tax-exemptCO2 Coalition, which he said pays his travel expenses but no salary. Just before Tuesday’s hearing, someone from Greenpeace filmed a heated exchange with Happer asking whether he had been paid to testify. Happer seemed to indicate that the CO2 Coalition “took some of my fee” before rising out of his chair and angrily replying, “I haven’t taken a dime, you son of a bitch.”

Finally, there was testimony from a witness invited by committee Democrats—former Navy Rear Admiral and current Penn State meteorology professor David Titley. Titley calmly attempted to explain the basics of climate science, highlighting the fact that nothing is ever 100 percent certain in science, yet we understand how to act on risks despite imperfect knowledge.

A question-and-answer portion followed this testimony, which at one point devolved to Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Steyn, and Curry pretty much shouting at each other. But there was also some discussion about satellite temperature data sets. (Curiously, this involved no questions for John Christy, who helps run one.) Senator Cruz is fond of claiming that one of the satellite data sets shows “no warming for 18 years” while ignoring longer-term trends and the fact that all surface temperature data sets show warming over that period.

After Senator Cruz pushed Titley to answer a question about the satellite records, which he claimed “the global warming alarmists don’t want to talk about,” Titley let loose. “Let’s talk about the satellite measurements,” Titley said. “Let’s talk about orbital decay. Let’s talk about overlapping satellite records. Let’s talk about stratospheric temperature contamination. I think Dr. Christy and Dr. [Roy] Spencer, when they’ve put this out, they have been wrong, I think, at least four consecutive times. Each time the data record has had to be adjusted upward. There have been several sign errors. So, with all due respect, sir, I don’t know which data, exactly, your staff has, whether it’s the first or second or third or fourth correction to Dr. Christy’s data. We used to have a negative trend, and then we had no trend, and now we begrudgingly have an upward trend.”

To be fair, Senator Cruz was pointing to a competing data set run by Remote Sensing Systems in California that, until recently, showed an even smaller 18-year warming trend than the University of Alabama in Huntsville data set. And the latest version of that UAH data set, which is in beta, reduces that trend once again.

In a curious moment, William Happer chimed in to state that these satellites measure temperatures “the same way as hospitals do today,” with devices that measure infrared radiation. In fact, these satellites measure microwave radiation, and doctors aren’t trying to simultaneously determine temperatures of various layers inside you when they pop a thermometer in your ear.

Senator Cruz also accused scientists of deliberately manipulating land surface temperature data to create the appearance of warming over the 20th Century. (Quality-control adjustments to sea surface temperature data, which obviously involve a much larger portion of the globe, actually make the overall effect a decrease in global 20th Century warming.) When asked about this, Judith Curry didn’t quite support Senator Cruz’s accusation but did comment, “To me, the error bars should really be much bigger if they’re making such a large adjustment, so we really don’t know too much about what’s going on.”

In contrast to this talk of uncertainty and scientific skullduggery, Senator Gary Peters (D-Mich.) opted for some remedial physics in his opening comments. “By burning fossil fuels, humans are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that would have otherwise remained locked away. This process creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps heat that otherwise would have been radiated off into space. We know that by the law of conservation of energy, that additional heat can’t just magically disappear. Instead, it causes our planet to get warmer.”

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/senate-science-committee-hearing-challenges-dogma-of-climate-science/

ICCC 10

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/07/i-rejoice-that-it-is-warm-ars-attends-a-climate-contrarian-conference/

“I accept that the planet has warmed,” said conservative columnist Mark Steyn from the podium. “And I rejoice that it is warm.”

Steyn was one of many speakers at the libertarian Heartland Institute's 10th “International Conference on Climate Change,” a major event for climate science contrarians. The two-day conference, held in mid-June at the classy Washington Court Hotel just a few blocks from the US Capitol, had all the trappings of an academic conference, but you wouldn’t mistake it for a Geological Society of America meeting. Tables set up outside the hotel’s main ballroom hosted conservative advocacy groups and think tanks like CFACT, the Ayn Rand Institute, and the Heritage Foundation (which attracted visitors with a life-size cardboard cut-out of Ronald Reagan). The audience contained some meteorologists but seemed mostly composed of retired couples with an interest in politics, along with a handful of state legislators.

The goal was to gather speakers—who, organizers frequently reminded the audience, were some of the most famous and well-respected experts in the world—who could arm attendees with the information they needed to take the Good Fight back out to the streets. A small number of the talks presented research into climate science, but most were arguments against climate policy based on economic impacts. In other words, imagine the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal plus a podium.

As for the speakers, they viewed themselves as voices of reason speaking truth to power—all of them trying desperately to keep the Western world from slipping over the precipice to certain economic ruin. And to hear them tell it, Heartland and its allies were winning the battle against the "climate alarmists." The public remains divided on the issue of climate change, with some recent polling placing it low on the priority list of concerns. Attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through legislation have been stymied. International negotiations have been arduous.

I went to Heartland’s conference expecting a series of detailed critiques of climate studies, much like the sort of posts that populate contrarian blogs after a new paper makes headlines. What I experienced instead was significantly less wonky—a cathartic echo chamber of outrage.

Serious scientific argument was thin on the ground. For instance, in a breakfast keynote on the second day, Mark Steyn simply made fun of well-known Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann for 30 minutes. (Steyn has written that Mann's research was fraudulent, resulting in a defamation lawsuit from Mann. Steyn is also the editor of a forthcoming book called A Disgrace to the Profession—you can guess who it’s about.) Red meat

Steyn wasn’t subtle, reiterating his accusation that Mann’s famous “hockey stick” tree ring temperature reconstruction was “fraudulent in every sense,” which resulted in hearty applause from the audience. Steyn also worked in references to the supposedly scandalous “Climategate” e-mails from 2007, describing University of East Anglia researchers corresponding with Michael Mann as “four schlubs who sound like Mann’s battered wives.”

During the audience Q&A that followed, Steyn found another target in former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Chair Rajendra Pachauri, who resigned earlier this year after sexual harassment accusations. Steyn referred to Pachauri as “Rajendra Pants-downee,” commenting that the former railway engineer’s “choo-choo jumped the tracks.” The jokes got huge laughs.

This is, it probably goes without saying, not the kind of thing you hear at an academic conference. Nearly every presentation referenced both Obama and Al Gore so frequently that a drinking game would have resulted in serious liver damage. References to studies published in peer-reviewed journals, on the other hand, were almost completely absent. Clever insults ruled the day; belly laughs were far more common than the curious "hmms" that usually dot the audience of a research talk.

The conference speakers did refer to science in passing—usually through sardonic quips about “alarmist” or "falsified" science—but their references gave me the feeling of being stuck in a time warp. There was an obsession with Al Gore and his 2007 film, An Inconvenient Truth, particularly the imagery of desperate polar bears. (“There is a problem with polar bears right now,” said Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe while receiving an award for political leadership. “It’s overpopulation.”)

Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature reconstruction, first published in 1998, also remained a common punch line. Attendees seemed blissfully unaware of the pile of subsequent studies that have yielded the same result. To them, the hockey stick remains the emblem of debunked, fraudulent climate science—their enemy’s shattered sword.

The bugbear of land temperature records distorted by the urban heat island effect, too, is still being slain. The idea here is that as cities grew up around weather stations, all that concrete heats up in the midday sun, pushing thermometer readings higher and artificially creating the appearance of a warming trend. This does happen, as does the opposite. Speakers claimed repeatedly that researchers ignore this effect.

Though this sounds good, it's not true. (And the fact that there are no urban heat islands on the ocean, which covers most of the Earth’s surface, appears to be under-appreciated.) For instance, the Berkeley Earth project, led by then-climate skeptic Richard Muller, was a privately funded effort purporting to address such warming biases in the temperature record. The project's record turned out to look just like all the others, and the team behind it concluded that the impact of the urban heat island effect was “indistinguishable from zero." That work was promptly discounted by groups like Heartland. When contrarian blogger Anthony Watts was asked during the conference about the Berkeley Earth project, he dismissed it by saying that the project hadn’t excluded “what I consider all of the bad data.”

NRO blogger, sued by mann, slammed judge, in der bunker

he's baaaaaa-aack

links in mann2

http://www.desmogblog.com/mark-steyn

Steyn attended the King Edward’s School in Birmingham, U.K., leaving in 1978, at the age of 18. Steyn does not appear to have a college education or any background in climate science.

Source: [1] , [2]

Background

Mark Steyn is the author and columnist of SteynOnline.com, where he writes “Steynposts”—commentary on current events—Monday through Friday, columns on politics and war, arts and culture, and on free-speech issues in the “Defend Free Speech! section” of his website. [3] Steyn regularly appears on The Rush Limbaugh Program and The Sean Hannity Show, in addition to a weekly appearance on The Hugh Hewitt Radio Show. [4]

Mark Steyn claims he “is an international bestselling author … and a leading Canadian human rights activist.” [4] Steyn’s writing “has been published in almost every major newspaper around the English-speaking world, including Britain's Daily Telegraph, Canada's National Post, The Australian, The Irish Times, The Jerusalem Post, The Wall Street Journal, and many more.” [4]

However, a 2004 profile of Steyn in the Boston Phoenix described him as “the most toxic right-wing pundit you’ve never heard of” and “a pungent columnist, essayist, and critic who’s not well known in the United States, but whose political screeds are published in English-speaking countries around the world. A native of Canada who divides his time among New Hampshire, Quebec, and London, Steyn is a self-described right-wing warmonger.” The Phoenix compared him to Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, writing that Steyn possesses “a shrill, mocking tone of moral certainty that consigns those who disagree with him to the status of appeasers or even terrorists; and a willingness to distort, misrepresent, and omit facts in order to advance his argument.” [21]

Stance on Climate Change

“For the last century, we’ve had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.” [5]

“Now I don't consider myself a big credentialed expert or anything. I simply looked at a graph Michael E Mann hadn't been anywhere near and drew the obvious conclusion. Gave it two minutes' thought, if that. The reason it's taking climate science so much longer to draw that obvious conclusion is because ideology and the ideological enforcers like Mann got in the way.”[6]

Key Quotes

“Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.” [7]

“Antarctic ice is now at a 35-year high. But scientists are “baffled” by the planet’s stubborn refusal to submit to their climate models … Global warming will kill us. Global cooling will kill us. And if it’s 54 and partly cloudy, you should probably flee for your life right now. Maybe scientists might usefully consider moving to being less hung up on “consensus” – a most unscientific and, in this context, profoundly corrupting concept.” [8]

“I want to get to court as soon as possible, and put Michael E Mann, PhD (Doctor of Phraudology) on the stand under oath. I haven't wasted two years on this guy to be denied my moment in court. That's one reason I've countersued Mann. He thinks the DC Superior Court is competent to litigate his fraudulent 'hockey stick'. Fine, let's get it to a jury - before the sclerotic DC 'justice' system's procedural delays go on as long as the global-warming 'pause'.” [12]

“There are all kinds of distinguished experts, including nobel prize winners all over the world who think that climate alarmism is a complete crock.” [16]

Key Deeds

June 11-12, 2015

Mark Steyn was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC10) in Washington, D.C. [22]

View Mark Steyn’s Breakfast Keynote presentation at the Heartland Institute’s ICCC10, below: [23]

April, 2015

Mark Steyn spoke about Climate Change: The Facts on the inaugural “Lawton Online” podcast for TheRebel.Media (see below, starting at time 43:15). According to Steyn, “We have now been 18 years without global warming.” He says is is proud to be among some of “the world's most eminent scientists” as well as “the fellows who are there for a cheap knockabout like me” who appear in the book.

Steyn describes Donna Laframboise as a “old colleague of mine from the National Post days.” Steyn also makes an unoffical challenge to David Suzuki to debate him on live television, saying that while he is not a climate change expert, he is “far more of an expert than [Suzuki] is.” [16]

December, 2014

Mark Steyn is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company. [18]

The book includes essays and articles from a range of climate change skeptics, with contributors including the following:

Alan Moran

Andrew Bolt

Anthony Watts

Bernard Lewin

Christopher Essex

Donna Laframboise

Garth W. Paltridge

Ian Plimer

J. Scott Armstrong

James Delingpole

Jennifer Marohasy

Joanne Nova

John Abbot

Kesten Green

Mark Steyn

Nigel Lawson

Patrick J. Michaels

Richard S. Lindzen

Robert M. Carter

Ross McKitrick

Rupert Darwall

Stewart Franks

Willie Soon

Editor Alan Moran summarized Steyn's contribution as follows:

Mark Steyn’s essay ‘Ship of Fools’ demonstrates how environmental activist, Professor Chris Turney inadvertently parodied Douglas Mawson’s Antarctic expedition. Turney had expected to see a path to the Pole cleared for his ship by global warming. After all, Al Gore had predicted an ice free Arctic by now. Instead, Turney’s Guardian backed expedition had to be rescued from expanding ice. A genuine scientist, as Turney claims to be, should have realised that Antarctic ice is expanding not increasing. [17]

As reported by DeSmogBlog, just as Steyn did in his article in The Spectator, Moran failed to point out that Turney’s expedition did know about recent sea ice trends in Antarctica because they explicitly identified this as something to study before they set off. [19], [20]

November 25, 2014

Mark Steyn was called to the D.C. Court of Appeals over the defamation suit originally filed by Michael Mann in 2012 in response to Steyn's July 2012 piece in the National Review titled “Football and Hockey.” The case has gone back and forth since 2012, with Steyn suggesting that Mann has extended the proceedings to make it more costly for the participants. Steyn had said he would represent himself, however later chose representation from Yale-Educated Dan Kornstein. [13],[14]

In his amicus brief (PDF), Steyn states that “The audacity of the falsehoods in Mann’s court pleadings is breathtaking” and claims that Mann has “manipulated” the anti-SLAPP process in order to slow proceedings for the purpose of “protracted and inevitably expensive litigation.” [15]

The blog Popehat reported in detail on the legal proceedings, going back to the start of the suit in 2012.

July 15, 2012

Mark Steyn publishes a piece in the National Review Online titled, “Football and Hockey.” [7] The piece resulted in Dr. Michael Mann, of Penn State University, suing Mark Steyn, National Review Online, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and CEI analyst Randy Simberg for “defamatory articles accusing him [Mann] of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky,” on July 23, 2012. [9] , [10] Steyn’s article “claimed Mann had ‘molested and tortured data,’ and described Mann’s famous ‘hockey stick’ graph as ‘fraudulent’.”[9]

Affiliations

SteynOnline.com [1]

Publications

According to a search of Google Scholar, Mark Steyn has not published any research in peer-reviewed journals. The search does list that he has published numerous books including America alone: The end of the world as we know it, After America: Get Ready for Armageddon, and Broadway Babies Say Goodnight: Musicals Then and Now. [11]

Resources

“Mark Steyn,” Wikipedia.

“Top American Conservative Mark Steyn Didn't Go to College,” Edbasic, July 9, 2012. Archived September 2, 2014.

“FAQs,” SteynOnline.com. Archived September 2, 2014.

“Mark's bio,” SteynOnline.com. Archived September 2, 2014.

Mark Steyn. “Climate Change You Can Believe In,” National Review Online, July 25, 2009. Archived September 3, 2014.

Mark Steyn. “Settled Science Catches Up with Steyn,” SteynOnline.com, August 27, 2014.

Mark Steyn. ”Football and Hockey,” National Review Online, July 15, 2012. Archived September 3, 2014.

Mark Steyn. ”Ice Everywhere, But No Hockey Sticks,” National Review Online, December 2, 2013. Archived September 3, 2014.

“Could A Climate Scientist's Defamation Suit Shut Down The Nation's Leading Conservative Magazine?,” Climate Progress, February 3, 2014. Archived September 3, 2014.

Mark Steyn. ”Mann-made climate change turns up the heat on Steyn,” SteynOnline.com, July 23, 2012.

“Mark Steyn,” Google Scholar.

Mark Steyn. “I'm Gonna Quash That Mann Right Out Of My Hair,” SteynOnline.Com. June 7, 2014.

Betsy Rothstein.”Mark Steyn To D.C. Court For Defamation Hearing (You Won’t Want To Miss This),” The Daily Caller, November 24, 2014.

Jonathan H. Adler. “Mann v. Steyn — Steyn goes his own way,” The Washington Post, June 9, 2014.

“BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MARK STEYN IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY,” Retrieved from Steynonline.com. Archived May 27, 2015 with WebCite.

“Lawton Online: Special guest Mark Steyn & more,” Rebel Media, April 16, 2015. [YouTube Video].

Alan Moran. “Climate Change: the facts 2014,” Catallaxy Files (blog), December 16, 2014.

“Institute of Public Affairs,” SourceWatch. Accessed May 27, 2015.

Graham Readfearn. “Australian Tax Breaks Help Fund Climate Science Denier Mark Steyn's Libel Defense in theUS,” DeSmogBlog, May 14, 2015.

Graham Readfearn. “What's going on with global warming and Antarctica's growing sea ice?” The Guardian, March 11, 2014.

Dan Kennedy. “Steyn’s way: Write, twist, smear, and sneer. Repeat!” Boston Phoenix, June 18, 2004.

“Speakers,” Heartland Institute. Archived June 30, 2015.

“Breakfast Keynote with Mark Steyn,” Heartland Institute, June 12, 2015. Archived July 14, 2015.

TAGS: mark steynsteyn onlinesteynonline.comClimate Denierglobal warming disinformation databasemann hockey stick

http://mediamatters.org/tags/mark-steyn

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/11/16/on-fox-business-mark-steyn-invokes-image-of-ter/206859

On Fox Business, Mark Steyn Invokes Image Of Terrorists "Sawing Bernie Sanders' Head Off" To Mock Him For Accurately Linking Climate Change To Terrorism

Steyn: The Leader Of ISIS "Would Be Sawing Bernie Sanders' Head Off, And He'll Be Saying As His Neck Is Being Sliced, If Only We'd Had An Emissions Trading Scheme"

Mark Steyn’s Newest Attack On Michael Mann And The Hockey Stick

By Guest • Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 00:01

DeSmog UK visited Washington DC earlier this month to check out the Heartland Institute's annual climate denial conference. There, amongst the conference's hand-outs, we discovered a promotional bookmark advertising a new book attacking Michael Mann's hockey stick as “a disgrace to the profession”. Greg Laden, biological anthropologist and science communicator, takes a closer look.

There is a new attack by an anti-science and anti-environment talking head on a well-respected climate scientist and his work. Mark Steyn is self-publishing a book of quotes by scientists that allegedly disparage Dr. Michael Mann and the “Hockey Stick.”

If the three examples Steyn provides to advertise his book are representative, Steyn’s book is unlikely to impress.

Like previous attempts to separate a key individual from the herd, Steyn’s latest money making scheme could make him a few bucks (his fans seem gullible) but in the end will destroy anything that happens to be left of his credibility and, possibly, his legal argument that he is not actively and maliciously attempting to defame an individual.

Here’s The Story

Conservative political commentator Mark Steyn has a new book coming out. I haven’t seen it yet, but looking at the publicity material provided by Steyn (the book is self-published) it appears to be a collection of scientist’s comments disparaging the work of Michael Mann and criticizing the famous “Hockey Stick” research.

This is a bit odd because Steyn is currently being sued by Mann for defamation, and this book looks like it could be more defamation. It would appear he has not consulted his lawyers!

The Hockey Stick is a concept, and a graphic, that arose as the result of a paper produced in 1999 by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. The researchers constructed a proxy northern hemisphere temperature curve, from ice cores and tree rings, which showed temperature variability over the previous 1,000 years.

This curve was matched with direct temperature measurements from the previous century, and ultimately played an important role in demonstrating the effects of human greenhouse gas pollution on the global surface heat balance. The graph showed the dramatic change in surface temperature after industrialization, indicates a steady increase in temperature, and showed how dramatic this change is in relation to previous time periods.

This and other related research, by the same group and others, also showed that previous known historical climate swings such as the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” were minor compared to recent warming (and also relatively regional, not global).

An example of the Hockey Stick Graph.

As with all important scientific work, there was some controversy but the work was good and over subsequent years it was verified by other research.

PAGES 2K

Indeed, during the several years that have passed since the publication of that study, the global surface temperature has continued to rise, as expected. A post at Climate Progress, written in 2013 by Stefan Rahmstorf, “Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick,”, summarizes the confirmation of the “Hockey Stick” in a landmark study known as the PAGES 2K project. Of the confirmation of the Hockey Stick results by PAGES 2K, Rahmstorf writes (the graph he refers to is the one I placed above):

The first comparable hockey stick curve was published in 1998 and 1999 by Mann et al. – at that time based on data only from the northern hemisphere. …

For the scientific community, the confirmation of the old hockey stick is no surprise (except perhaps for the closeness of the match); many other climate reconstructions with a similar time evolution have already appeared since. Mann et al. at the time cautiously assumed a wide margin of uncertainty (light blue) because of their limited data base and a possible underestimation of the variance by their method; later reconstructions run largely within this margin. The work of Mann and colleagues has gained the highest recognition. For example, Bradley was honoured in 2007 with the Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union and Mann likewise in 2012, and both were (as well as Hughes) elected as fellows of the American Geophysical Union. Politically motivated attacks on their work were immense, however – both Bradley and Mann have published books about that experience.

The books are here and here.

The PAGES 2K work was published in Nature Geoscience as “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia” authored by the “PAGES 2K Consortium,” a long list of authors ranging across the entire alphabet from A (Moinuddin Ahmed) to Z (Eduardo Zorita).

In essence, these authors found that Michael Mann and his colleagues were right, and the Hockey Stick configuration of global temperature change is correct.

A Disgrace

Now, back to Mark Steyn’s forthcoming work. The book is, “‘A Disgrace To The Profession’ The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science: Volume I” Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn

Steyn provides three quotes that he implies are representative of the statements of “World’s Scientists” criticizing Mann and the Hockey Stick research. They are:

“Do I expect you to publicly denounce the hockey stick as obvious drivel? Well, yes.”

-Jonathan Jones, Professor of Atomic and Laser Physics, University of Oxford

“Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred …because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

-Eduardo Zorita, Senior Scientist at Germany’s Institute for Coastal Research

“Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.”

-Simon Tett, Professor of Climate Science, University of Edinburgh

Now, if I was writing a book that mainly included quotes by experts on something, then picked out three quotes from the entire book to be representative, there are two things I would do.

First, I would make sure the quotes were from credible experts. Second, I would make sure that the quotes are key indisputable examples of what those experts think.

So, I asked myself, does it make sense that Jonathan Jones, Eduardo Zorita, and Simon Tett think Michael Mann got it all wrong, and the Hockey Stick concept is bunk?

I contacted all three of these individuals to see what they thought about this. Let’s start with Simon Tett.

Frankly, I was very surprised to see his quote used by Steyn, because as far as I know, Dr. Tett is a mainstream climate scientist who has made important contributions to understanding variability in the climate record.

Indeed, he has contributed to the Hockey Stick reconstruction by advancing research on the role of aerosols. Tett and Michael Mann have published together on this issue. It made no sense that Tett would be bashing Mann and his work, because some of that is his own work.

I wondered if the quote is taken out of context. Would Mark Steyn take a scholar’s quote out of context, totally changing the meaning, in order to associate that scholar with discredited ideas, or maybe turn one scholar against another?

Of course he would. That is his modus operendi. Maybe he likes getting sued?

Simon Tett

Anyway, when I asked Simon Tett about this, he told me that he does not recall the quote, though perhaps it was from a private email (like this) and has all the context removed. Note that the quote is supposed to have come from 2001, so Tett assumes it would have been, had he actually said it, a criticism of the hockey stick paper.

He told me, “I think my criticism was that it was likely missing some variances. My view then and still is that recent warming is very likely outside the range of natural variability.”

I have not seen Tett’s quote in its original exact context, but I think it is part of a larger bit of text that makes up part of the so-called Climategate 2.0 emails. If so, Tett said:

I think there are issues in Mann et al’s approach -- recall the Esper et al paper which produced a reconstruction with lots more low frequency variability than others. From the comment on the paper by Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn (attached) you can see that Mann’s reconstruction had the least variability of any of the reconstructions. Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes Mann et al got it wrong. How wrong is still under debate and the ECHO-G/HadCM3 results may be over-exaggerating the variance loss for some model-specific reasons.

This provides more context to Tett’s quote, indicating that this is an argument over variability in Mann et al’s reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the last thousand years.

But there is even more to it than that.

Climate Variability

There was vigorous argument over which models should ultimately be used in the IPCC report that included the Hockey Stick, including one (or two) by Tett that show a similar pattern to Mann et al’s original findings.

In asking around about what was happening in those days I learned a lot more than needed for this humble blog post. Suffice it to say, there was arguing about important details, but not about the basic reality of climate change and recent warming.

All of the discussion had to do with how much variation there was in the older record, and most of that uncertainty has been addressed over the subsequent decade.

Tett’s contribution to climate science has been to address that variability. He has recently co-authored articles with Mike Mann that confirm the Hockey Stick pattern of temperature changes and seek to understand that pattern in terms of natural and human drives of climate. Clearly, he is one of the nearly 100 percent of scientists who view global warming as real and caused by human greenhouse gas pollution.

So. That’s settled. Steyn got it wrong.

Eduardo Zorita

Then I looked at Eduardo Zorita.

He is a paleoclimatologist, so he’s in the game and may have expertise that matters. He has contributed to one IPCC report. He is famous for having suggested that climate scientists adjust their findings under political pressure. From Wikipedia:

Zorita was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying that the “scientific debate [on climate change] has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas”, and that climate science students are “often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’.” Zorita continued, “some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties ….”

That was in 2009.

So, Zorita is a real climate scientist who has concerns about the way some of the research is conducted. That’s good. Scientists should always be concerned about how the research is conducted, and it is healthy to have such conversations.

But is Zorita a Hockey Stick denier like Mark Steyn implies he is? No.

I gave you a clue to this earlier in the post when I mentioned the PAGES 2K study. Did you notice that Zorita is an author of that major paper, known, among other things, for confirming the Hockey Stick?

Personally I can’t think of a worse choice to list as a person criticizing the hockey stick than an author of the largest effort by scientists that confirmed the hockey stick. Maybe Steyn didn’t know. Maybe he should know stuff before he writes a book about it.

Perception of Objectivity

Zorita did get back to me about Steyn’s use of his quote. He told me that the quote is essentially accurate, and that he has put it on his personal web page several years ago. He was concerned about the perception of objectivity in the IPCC process, so perhaps these researchers should not be part of the process given the controversy at the time caused by the famous Climategate hacked emails.

However, he was careful to note that his statement was “not related to the quality of their scientific work. Actually, my statement was a suggestion to isolate the IPCC process from the credibility crisis linked to Climategate.”

So this is about perception, not about the quality of the science or the validity of the Hockey Stick.

He went on to say, “I feel that those political attacks, especially those against Michael Mann in the US, have no justification.”

Zorita told me that he felt the Hockey Stick was something of a public relations mistake.

“The irony is that the hockey-stick is not a proof and not a disproof of anthropogenic climate change. As Stefan Rahmstorf correctly wrote, if the hockey-stick had not existed the case for [anthropogenic global warming] AGW would not be stronger or weaker. But the hockey-stick had become its symbol and the subject of political manoeuvring.”

Interesting idea. Zorita also indicated that he is in the camp of seeing much more variability in the older surface temperature record than the original Mann Et Al research indicated, adding “this has had no relevance for the case of AGW.”

So, just as with the case of Tett, Zorita is a bad choice for Steyn to use in criticizing the scientists or the science, unless his book is going to support the current science of global warming, but with a detailed look at pre-industrial climate variation. I doubt that is the case.

Jonathan Jones

Jonathan Jones, at Oxford, the third quoted scientist, is a physicist in an area of physics that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. I think he is a tutor there, but I’m not sure. He published a few things many years ago then seems to have trailed off in academic activity, but nothing on climate science.

Back in the day, he went after the “Hockey Stick” and actually did one of those “Freedom of Information” requests to obtain some data he thought was being kept from him, in order to strike a blow for freedom. (That data was already being shared among various collaborators, but apparently not among random people who demanded it … this is a huge data base and not something you pop in an email and send off to someone.)

He got the data, but never did anything with it as far as I can tell. The rapidly growing consensus on human caused climate change did not fall to some insightful analysis by Jonathan Jones.

Jones responded to my question by simply sending the link to his original quote. The context turns out to be interesting.

The original quote by Jones was a lengthy screed critical of the climate science and the scientists in which he explicitly implores Richard Betts to denounce the hockey stick. (Betts is a climate scientist at the UK’s Met Office, and a lead author for the IPCC 4th assessment report and other IPCC documents.)

Jones indicates that the whole global warming thing is pathological science, will eventually go away, and he hopes he can soon get back to his own research in an utterly unrelated field. Which, I think, he may have done.

Maybe Jonathan Jones, as a non-climate scientist who is also a climate science denier, is an appropriate person to quote in Steyn’s book. One in three … not a very good result.

I’m thinking this is not going to be a very big book. Certainly not a very good one. Maybe Steyn is counting on a lot of pre-orders.

This article has been cross posted from Science Blogs.

TAGS: mark steynmichael mannHockey Stick Controversy

The National Review is a political magazine, and Mark Steyn, I think, writes for them (I really don’t keep track). A while back Steyn and/or the National Review made some seemingly very defamatory statements about Michael Mann, the climate scientist. Career-damaging really icky accusations of fraud and such. They were bogus accusations, but they were also not just trollish yammering of the type we see all the time from the science denialist gaggle. So, Mann sued them.

NationalReviewHyperboleMemeI prefer the Law and Order version of law. Something happens on Monday, on Tuesday everything is confusing, on Wednesday there is a car chase or something, on Thursday everyone is in court and on Friday the whole maneno is done with and everyone is back to eating donuts. Real legal stuff drags on forever. If you want to catch up, here are a few blog posts and other items that might help. (That was a search using the Climate Science Search Engine, which is on the right side bar of my blog!)

Anyway, there is a new development. National Review has filed a long and boring legal document that appears to be some kind of whinging about how the case against them should go away. Eli Rabbit has made two comments about it that I agree with. First, he notes that the document states that the prior yammering by National Review is not officially “malice” because they really believe the things they say. But, in the same document, they claim that “Read in context, Steyn’s commentary was protected rhetorical hyperbole, not a literal accusation of fraud or data falsification.” See meme.

The second point also stuck out as a sore thumb when I looked at it, and it is so obvious that I assumed I was reading the legal document incorrectly. But Eli confirms. From the legal document:

…critics have argued that the hockey stick is misleading because it splices together two different types of data without highlighting the change: For roughly the first nine centuries after the year 1000 A.D., the graph shows temperature levels that have been inferred solely from tree-ring samples and other “proxy” data. But from about 1900 onward, the graph relies on readings from modern instruments such as thermometers.

I’m pretty sure the technical legal term for this is taurus craps puris*. The hockey stick graph in its original form and most early incarnations has color coding or other appropriate line style differences to distinguish between the records. Some people have taken both the hockey stick graph and other similar graphics and merged the data into a single squiggle for presentation purposes, an acceptable if not always wise method. The National Review legal document also makes mention of shifting between proxies and instrumental data. They suggest that a broken instrumental record should have been used instead of simple temperature measurements with thermometers and stuff. This harks back to the time the climate science denialists stole a bunch of scientists’ email and made stuff up about it (a complicated story but one you can read about in detail in Mann’s book).

This filing by the National Review is a lame defense against a very well argued and appropriate law suit. I’m sure this won’t last until Wednesday in court. (Law and Order time.) Not only are their claims wrong, but they have been known to be long for a very long time.

*Translates roughly as Complete and Utter Bullshit.

m blake

Mother Jones

A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky

As the judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants' lawyers jump ship.

By Mariah Blake | Fri Jan. 24, 2014 7:00 AM EST

Social Title:

A win for the climate scientist who skeptics compared to Jerry Sandusky

A judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants' lawyers jump ship.

In 2012—after writers for National Review and a prominent conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky—climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.

Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued [1] that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:

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.

Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.

The lawyers' withdrawal came shortly after Steyn—a prominent conservative pundit who regularly fills in as host of Rush Limbaugh's radio show—publicly attacked the former judge in the case, Natalia Combs Greene, accusing her of "stupidity" and "staggering" incompetence. [proto trump] Mann's attorney, John B. Williams, suspects this is no coincidence. "Any lawyer would be taken aback if their client said such things about the judge," he says. "That may well be why Steptoe withdrew."

Steyn's manager, Melissa Howes, acknowledged that his commentary "did not go over well."* But Steyn maintains it was his decision to part ways with his attorneys.

The lawsuit centers on Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph. In 1999, Mann and two colleagues charted 1,000 years worth of climate data, and found a steep uptick in global temperatures beginning in the 20th century. The graph, named for its iconic shape, became a potent, easy-to-grasp symbol of global warming. And it was featured prominently in the landmark 2001 report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded [2] that "the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years."

The chart also made Mann a target for climate change skeptics. This was especially true beginning in 2009, when more than 1,000 emails were stolen from Britain's University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU), one of the world’s leading climate research institutions. In one message, CRU’s director, Phil Jones, famously described using Mann's "Nature trick" to "hide the decline." He was referring to a technique that Mann had used to control for variations in tree-ring data [4] in a paper for the journal Nature. But Skeptics—among them the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a free-market think tank that has received funding from the Koch bothers and Exxon Mobil—seized on this revelation as evidence that scientists were conspiring to cover up a decline in global temperatures.

Soon, climate researchers found themselves under siege. Mann's inbox was flooded with death threats and messages calling him a "fraud," a "fucking terrorist," and a "one-world-government socialist.” As Mother Jones reported in 2011 [5], "Images of Mann and other scientists were posted on neo-Nazi sites. The CRU's Jones temporarily stepped down from his post; he later said he contemplated suicide."

Pennsylvania State University, where Mann works, and at least six other institutions conducted separate investigations into the allegations of scientific misconduct. An independent probe [6] commissioned by the University of East Anglia faulted the researchers for their bunker mentality, and found their responses "to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive." But none of the investigations turned up evidence of malfeasance or data manipulation. After completing its inquiry, the US Environmental Protection Agency posted a fact sheet [7] on its website stating:

The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results…Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.

Still, the emails remained a rallying cry for skeptics, some of whom turned their ire on Penn State, which allegedly declined to interview Mann's critics during its probe. In 2012, it came to light that Penn State officials had ignored or concealed evidence that former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was molesting children, including in the university's locker room. That July, CEI scholar Rand Simberg wrote a post [8] for the organization's blog likening the situation to "another cover up," the "Michael Mann affair." Simberg also called Mann "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."

Several days later, CEI deleted the passage, which it admitted was "inappropriate." But Steyn, a regular National Review contributor, quoted it on the magazine's blog [9]. He added:

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. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graph.

Mann's attorney fired off letters to CEI and the National Review, calling the fraud allegations "defamatory" and demanding apologies and full retractions. National Review Editor Richard Lowry responded with another post, which dismissed the defamation claims as "transparent nonsense." "In common polemical usage, 'fraudulent' doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud," he wrote. "It means intellectually bogus."[cooch sued for fraud?] At that point, Mann filed his defamation suit against CEI, Simberg, National Review, and Steyn. In July 2013, Judge Combs Greene of the DC Superior Court rejected the defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants appealed the decision. But that December, the appeals court, which was concerned that Mann had filed an amended complaint shortly before Combs Greene's ruling, sent it back to the Superior Court for further review. Judge Weissman took on the case, following Combs Greene's retirement.

Finally, on Christmas Eve, Steyn published his blog post [10], railing against Combs Greene and her ruling, which contained typographical errors and mixed up the defendants:

Among her many staggering incompetences, DC Superior Court judge Natalia Combs-Greene…denied NR's motion to dismiss the fraudulent complaint while simultaneously permitting Mann’s lawyers to file an amended complaint.

The appellate judges have now tossed out anything relating to Mann's original fraudulent complaint, including Judge Combs-Greene's unbelievably careless ruling in which the obtuse jurist managed to confuse the defendants, and her subsequent ruling in which she chose to double-down on her own stupidity. Anything with Combs-Greene's name on it has now been flushed down the toilet of history."

When asked about these comments, Steyn made no apologies. "I spent the first months attempting to conceal my contempt for Judge Combs Greene's court," he said in an email to Mother Jones. "But really, it's not worth the effort." Wednesday's ruling affirms the thrust of Combs Greene's order, however. It also concludes that "a reasonable jury" may "find the statement that Dr. Mann 'molested and tortured data' was false, and published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for whether it was false or not."

Steyn, meanwhile, appears to be paying a price for his brazenness. He still has no legal representation. ("My check from the Koch brothers seems to have been lost in the mail or intercepted by the NSA," he wrote. "So for the moment I am representing myself.") And since his Christmas Eve diatribe, the conservative pundit—who had been writing near-daily posts for National Review Online—hasn't written a single item. Neither he nor the magazine's publisher, Jack Fowler, would say why. But Steyn hinted at the reasons in a post on his website: "As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team."....

milloy

http://junkscience.com/2016/06/update-on-mann-v-free-speech-defendant-mark-steyn-requests-expedited-hearing/

Update on Mann v. Free Speech — Defendant Mark Steyn requests expedited hearing

The case is taking so long that defense witnesses are starting to die.

The media release is below.

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 2016

CONTACT: Amy K. Mitchell amy@ajpromos.com

Mark Steyn Files For Expedited Hearing in Mann v. Steyn, et al

Washington, DC — Today, Mark Steyn requested that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia expedite the hearing and lift the stay of discovery in the case of Michael Mann v. Steyn, et al. It has been two years since the case was referred to the Appellate Court, where it is remains in limbo.

Mr. Steyn has asked the court to move forward with the case as material witnesses for the defense have passed away since the referral.

“Something needed to be done to jumpstart this case, a case that threatens the most fundamental First Amendment freedoms. The case was brought in mid-2012. It is now four years later and the appeals from defendants’ special motions to dismiss have not been decided, nor has discovery proceeded,” stated Dan Kornstein, Steyn’s lawyer. “The passage of time since the appeal was argued in this case a year and a half ago while a stay of proceedings was in effect at the trial level has stalled a case whose very existence chills freedom of speech. To correct this situation and get the case moving, Mark Steyn filed this request to ask the trial court to lift the stay of proceedings even while the appeal is pending. We hope the trial judge grants the request.”

Mr. Steyn’s request is in line with case law, as cited in the amicus brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the defendants, stating that SLAPP laws exist “to remedy the ‘nationally recognized problem’ of abusive lawsuits against speech on public issues by providing defendants ‘with substantive rights to expeditiously and economically dispense of litigation’ that qualified as a SLAPP – in other words, to nip such lawsuits in the bud.” Furthermore, “[T]he special motion to dismiss must generally be granted prior to discovery, D.C. Code § 16-5502(c)(1), ‘[t]o ensure [that] a defendant is not subject to the expensive and time consuming discovery that is often used in a SLAPP as a means to prevent or punish.’”

The defense of this case, due to its First Amendment implications, is supported by: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Advance Publications, Inc., Alibritton Communications Company, American Society of News Editors, Association of Alternative Newsmedia, The Association of American Publishers, Inc., Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Amendment Coalition, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Gannett Co., Inc., Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, The McClatchy Company, MediaNews Group. Inc., d/b/a Digital First Media. The National Press Club, National Press Photographers Association. National Public Radio, Inc., NBCUniversal Media. LLC, The New York Times Company, News Corp. Newspaper Association of America. North Jersey Media Group Inc.. Online News Association, POLITICO LLC, Reuters America LLC, The Seattle Times Company, Society of Professional Journalists, Students Press Law Center, Time Inc., The Washington Post.

Related documents:

Mark Steyn’s Renewed Request for Expedited Hearing and to Left Stay of Discovery and Supplemental Brief on Plaintiff: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/7531.pdf

Brief Amici Curiae of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 26 Other

Organizations in Support of Appellants and Urging Reversal: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6515.pdf

Brief of Amicus Curiae Mark Steyn in Support of Neither Party:

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6516.pdf

For more information, please contact Amy Mitchell at amy@ajpromos.com.

http://www.ajpromos.com/

Mark Steyn

Author/Recording Artist

Mark Steyn is an international bestselling author, a Top 41 recording artist, and a leading Canadian human rights activist. Mark is also a visiting fellow of Hillsdale College; and a popular guest host of America's Number One radio show The Rush Limbaugh Program, and America's Number Two cable show Hannity.

Conrad Black

Speaker/Author

Critically acclaimed author and biographer, former head of Argus & Hollinger group of companies and London's Telegraph newspapers, Black is also the founder of Canada's National Post. He's been a member of the British House of Lords since 2001.

http://www.examiner.com/article/professor-mann-claims-to-win-nobel-prize-nobel-committee-says-he-has-not

Professor Michael Mann recently filed a defamation suit against National Review Online et al (download legal complaint hereand here) based on articles written by various authors that called into question his famous hockey stick graph of global-warming temperatures.

In the lawsuit, Mann makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2). He premises much of his argument/suit that by winning such a prestigious prize, he has the right to sue the aforementioned authors for defamation of character.The suit is based on articles written by different authors at different times and can be found here, here, and here.

I contacted the The Norwegian Nobel Institute to find out if Mann was indeed a Nobel Laureate, winner, etc... My questions were:

Was Prof Michael Mann 'awarded' a Nobel Prize of any sort at any time? Is he a Nobel Laureate as implied elsewhere in his legal brief?

Did he receive a certificate "for contributing to" the IPCC Nobel Peace Prize? Is the photo of the certificate authentic? [see photo]

Is there a difference between stating you "were awarded" the Nobel Peace Prize as indicated by Mann in his legal brief and "contributing to" as shown in the attached photo of the certificate?

Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute emailed me back with the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geir_Lundestad

1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and made his own text underneath this authentic-looking diploma.

3) The text underneath the diploma is entirely his own. We issued only the diploma to the IPCC as such. No individuals on the IPCC side received anything in 2007.

Lundestad goes on to say that, "Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not."

So it would appear that not only did Mann not get awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but that the "text underneath the diploma is entirely his own." This calls into further questions of what else may not be factual in the legal suit over the highly publicized hockey-stick graph and defamation suit.

Michael Mann even twitted, "IPCC certificate acknowledging me "contributing to award of the Nobel Peace Prize". Do they want my birth certif too?" It would appear the answer is yes.

For more background on the story, see here and here and here.

Update from Climate Depot: The IPCC issued the certificates with the text on them to IPCC participants, including Mann. Mann did not add the text himself. Here is a photo of a UN IPCC issued certificate (LINK)

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6515.pdf

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The District of Columbia enacted the anti-SLAPP statute, D.C. Code §§ 16-5501 et seq. (2011), to prevent claims based on speech about matters of public interest from advancing past the initial stages of litigation unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Michael Mann, a climate scientist, sued defendants for defamation regarding statements they made on blog posts about the controversy surrounding Mann’s research methods and data. Defendants moved to dismiss Mann’s complaint under the D.C. anti-SLAPP statute. The D.C. Superior Court denied the motions, prompting this appeal. ...

http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6516.pdf

CEI and NR v Mann:

Michael J. Songer (D.C. Bar No. 453727) CROWELL & MORING 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 624-2500 Msonger@crowell.com -and-

Michael J. Songer is a trial lawyer and partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and is co-chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Group. Mike is also a member of the firm’s Commercial Litigation Group, and previously served as its co-chair. His practice focuses on complex technology disputes in a wide variety of areas.

He has represented a broad range of clients and has tried numerous cases involving complex licensing arrangements, trade secrets, patents and copyrights, as well as commercial disputes. Recent significant representations include LifeNet Health (patent), DuPont (trade secrets and antitrust), General Electric (patent), CoStar Group (licensing and copyright), AT&T (patent), Canon Inc. (patent), and Sprint (software licenses).

Notably, Mike was the lead trial counsel in the case DuPont v. Kolon, a trade secrets case involving DuPont's Kevlar® product. After a seven-week trial, DuPont was awarded $919.9 million in damages, the largest contested jury trade secret verdict and the largest verdict ever awarded in the Commonwealth of Virginia. More recently, Mike was the lead trial counsel in the case LifeNet Health v. LifeCell, a patent case involving soft tissue grafts. Mike and his team obtained an infringement jury award for LifeNet Health of $34 million, a verdict that was ranked by the National Law Journal as one of the “Top 100 Verdicts of 2014,” and the largest jury verdict in the Commonwealth of Virginia for 2014. Mike also obtained a summary judgment in favor of AT&T Mobility II in a patent case by successfully asserting a laches defense.

*Daniel J. Kornstein KORNSTEIN VEISZ WEXLER & POLLARD, LLP (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 757 Third Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 418-8600 dkornstein@kvwmail.co

my lai

steyn blurb

http://kvwp.net/bio/kornstein.htm

torture?

http://www.fed-soc.org/experts/detail/daniel-j-kornstein

co platt

=steyn 3/14

Ever since I ended my joint representation with National Review and fired my lawyers on Boxing Day, the endlessly reprised refrain has been that "Mark Steyn has a fool for a client". As I wrote here:

That's an old English joke, of course. Circa 18th century, I believe, when English life was very lightly lawyered. Whether it applies a quarter-millennium on in a sclerotic dungheap of a system that, as my old boss Conrad Black likes to point out, employs as many lawyers as the rest of the planet combined, who between them invoice ten per cent of GDP, is an interesting question. My own view is that, if the lawyerization of American life needs to snort up its nose the entire GDP of Australia every year, then you're doing it wrong.

I wrote that after a hugely enjoyable and inspiring day in Madam Justice Matheson's courtroom in Toronto watching a performance that would be impossible in the objection-choked procedural swamps of American "justice". I have come to the conclusion that the system here is, in fact, evil - which is perhaps not the most helpful perspective when one is on the receiving end of it.

So I am pleased to be able to announce today that several other fellows also have a fool for a client - see here, here and here.

Daniel J Kornstein and his co-counsel Mark Platt were the driving force behind the most consequential free-speech legislation this century. Dan is an expert libel lawyer and a principled freedom-of-expression fighter whose clients have included Vanessa Redgrave, Bill Clinton, the Monkees, Harvey Keitel, Wilford Brimley, Fatal Vision author and sometime Sarah Palin neighbor Joe McGinnis (who died earlier this month), and King Michael of Romania, who made Dan one of the first inductees into the Order of the Crown of Romania in over 60 years. I've promised Dan that if we win this case I'll get him made a Knight of the Garter or at least a Companion of the Order of Canada. Where I fall on that spectrum of clients, I'm not sure - I'd like to think somewhere between King Michael and Wilford Brimley, but it may be closer to the Monkees, and Peter Tork at that.

Dan also has a touch of the poet about him. He delivered a speech on Balzac and the law at the Palais de Justice in Paris - in French. Which will come in very useful when I flee across the New Hampshire border to Quebec and Dr Mann applies to have me extradited.

Dan and Mark's most important client in the last decade or so was Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose bookFunding Evil happened to include rather more details of Khalid bin Mahfouz's bankrolling of al-Qaeda than the Saudi billionaire cared to have revealed to the world. So he sued her in a London court. Dan and Mark got Dr Ehrenfeld to countersue in New York to prevent Mahfouz from ever collecting, and, when the court declined to acknowledge it had personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz, they got the legislature to take up the issue and pass "Rachel's Law". This law prevents New York courts from enforcing libel judgments from other countries with lower standards of freedom-of-speech protection.

It was and is a big issue. A few years ago, Rachel, Dan and I participated in a conference hosted by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and The New Criterion on "Free Speech in an Age of Jihad". The litigious end of the jihad had been skilfully using "libel tourism" to pick and choose the most favorable venues in which to strike at their opponents. It was a particular challenge for authors. I wrote in 2007 about another American book, Alms For Jihad, that attracted Sheikh Mahfouz's attention:

Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:

"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.

"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."

Yeah, right.

Had this kept up, it would have severely constrained the kinds of things American authors and publishers were permitted to write and publish on Islam and other controversial topics. Instead, "Rachel's Law" made it impossible for the likes of Mahfouz to use "libel tourism" to hollow out the First Amendment. It was replicated by several other state legislatures and eventually in 2010 by the United States Congress, after a unanimous vote by both the House and Senate. As Jerry Gordon wrote, "Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the stubborn perseverance of Dr Ehrenfeld and the unsung hero in this fight her counsel, Daniel Kornstein, a pillar in the First Amendment bar." But it goes beyond that. The first serious reform of English libel law (last year's Defamation Act) was in part the result of "Rachel's Law" and Dan's discrediting of London as the first resort of libel tourists.

Sheikh Mahfouz made the mistake of taking on Dan Kornstein and Mark Platt and lost comprehensively. Obviously, I don't think anyone's going to be passing Marky's Law any time soon, but there are certain similarities between Mahfouz and Mann in respect of "libel tourism". When the Sheikhdown maestro sued in the English courts, he did at least have a pad in London (and, mysteriously, an Irish passport). Michael E Mann doesn't live or work in the District of Columbia, and nor do I. Nevertheless, his Amended Complaint states:

Mr. Steyn's writings are widely read and circulated in the District of Columbia. Accordingly, Mr. Steyn is transacting and doing business within the District of Columbia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to DC Code §13-423(a).

By that definition, if "I'm A Believer" by Dan's old clients the Monkees is played on a radio station in, say, Tuvalu, the Monkees are "transacting business" in Tuvalu and subject to their jurisdiction. This kind of procedural flimflam is what gives American "justice" its appallingly bad odor.

At any rate, joining Messrs Kornstein and Platt will be Michael J Songer, co-chair of the Litigation Group at Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC. Mike won a big $919.9 million payout for DuPont over a trade-secrets theft case involving Kevlar, which I was planning to wear to court anyway. A critical element of that case, interestingly enough, was the other party's deletion of emails. Mike is also a freespeecher, who teaches a course on the Law of Cyberspace at Georgetown University. He's big on issues of copyright and intellectual property, which Mann has frequently hidden behind in his attempts to avoid disclosing the data and research that produced his "hockey stick". In addition, Mike is a science graduate, so he understands both the technical jargon and, just as importantly, how to distill it for a jury.

So I'm no longer an out-of-control full-bore crazy. Instead, I'm an out-of-control full-bore crazy who's lawyered up to the hilt. This will leave me free to concentrate on my core activities of insulting judges and mocking Mann's self-conferred Nobel Prize, while Dan, Mark and Mike do the boring stuff like looking up precedents and knowing what a tort is. It would not have been possible to put this team together without your patronage of the SteynOnline bookstore. I said that I wanted this to be a jurisprudential landmark - the first legal campaign entirely funded by sales of my Christmas disco record. Sadly, there seems to be a certain resistance to my intoxicating rhythms from some readers, so we're also having to rely on book profits, commemorative mugs and mousepads, attitudinal T-shirts,gift certificates and the full cornucopia of delights at the Steyn store. But we're keeping our heads above water, and for that, as we prepare to mount the first serious forensic investigation of Mann and his work, I'm enormously grateful.

I'm also overwhelmed by the number of lawyers from across America who have offered their services and advice pro bono or at steeply discounted rates. It is heartening to know how many understand the stakes for free speech in America. Dan, Mark and Mike believe in this case, understand its importance, and together we will prevail.=

laden

Larry Clifton has suggested that Michael Mann’s law suit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Review, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg is ruining it for everyone, and a lot of his right wing conservative friends agree. But they are all wrong, so wrong that one wonders how they could be so wrong. It smells to me like willful ignorance.

This is Michael Moore. For a while, Clifton had a picture of Michael Moore instead of Michael Mann on his Digital Journal post. Made me laugh.

For people who spend most of their time whinging about how other people are ruining the Constitution, they don’t know much about the Constitution. A document filed as a “friend of the court” brief by a gaggle of Defenders of Liberty and Stuff states, “While Mann essentially claims that he can silence critics because he is ‘right,’ the judicial system should not be the arbiter of either scientific truth or correct public policy,” the brief states, adding that “a participant in the ‘rough-and-tumble’ of public debate should not be able to use a lawsuit like this to silence his critics, regardless of whether one agrees with Mann or defendants.”

The title of Clifton’s piece is “Climate change advocate sues over rejection of his work” which very clearly indicates that the suit is about Mann’s scientific work and over objections to that work. It isn’t. Perhaps the title of that post was added by an Intern in the editorial office, and if so, somebody should fix that, but if the title o the post is meant to imply the meaning of the post, then Clifton clearly misunderstand, deeply and completely, what is going on with the suit.

The judicial system is not being asked to arbitrate about the science or to address “rejection” of any scientific work by anyone. It is easy to prove that Michael Mann is engaged in a number of scientific debates. This one and this one come to mind. This is not about defining or interpreting the science, never was, can not possibly be interpreted that way by an honest observer.

This is not about public policy. Again, Mann is engaged in debates about that too. But the law suit is not about that. Never was.

A law suit about science interpretation or public policy would have been tossed out first thing.

The law suit is about a very specific and actionable libelous accusation of professional misconduct, not about the validity of Mann’s research, or the reality of global warming. Clifton and his friends make an utterly absurd claim that this is about criticism of Mann’s research, that Mann is suing someone who disagreed with him. No, it is not, that is not what happened, this is not what the suit is about, and any assertion along these lines comes from ignorance of one kind or another, either simple ignorance of the narrative or willful ignorance designed to produce a particular effect.

So, no, Larry, you’ve got this totally wrong.

(Sort of off topic, but Larry, you also have the bits about global warming in your post totally wrong as well. Sort of “bigfoot is real” level wrong, actually.)

sci blog 2

gred ladin-

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/12/22/mark-steyn-the-dc-appeals-court-and-congress/

This is a long story that I’ll try to make short, because I’m trying to make a single, simple point.

Years ago shock jock and right-wing political commenter Mark Steyn, using the vehicle of the conservative magazine National Review, made disparaging remarks about climate scientistMichael Mann. These remarks were viewed by Mann and others as likely libelous. It is important to note that these remarks were both systematically and coincidentally part of larger efforts to disparage climate science, and climate scientists. I won’t discuss here why anyone would do that.

A law suit ensued, and the details of that suit are complicated and beyond the scope of this blog post, and, frankly, beyond my expertise as a non-lawyer.

More recently, the United States Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, chaired by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), conducted a hearing called “Data or Dogma? Promoting Open Inquiry in the Debate over the Magnitude of Human Impact on Earth’s Climate.”

One of the witnesses called by Cruz to testify was Mark Steyn. It was not clear to me, at first, why Steyn was called as an expert witness. He is at most a political commenter, and has no verifiable expertise on climate science, or the nature of science and scientific inquiry. After reading his testimony, and seeing the hearings, however, I developed a hypothesis as to why Steyn was involved, though I’m not sure how unusual this action was, or how it could have been organized.

Current and recommended books on climate change.

The law suit in question is certainly an important law suit, because it speaks to how anti-science forces can be allowed, or not allowed, to attack scientists. I’m not sure what the legal ramifications of one decision or another might be. A recent similar law suit in Canada found in favor of the scientist being attacked, and that might have helped mitigate against the growing problem that young people looking into science careers must increasingly consider that they will not just be scientists, but targets of politically motivated attacks, sometimes personal.

Mark Steyn’s Racist Remarks About Two Judges

In his written Testimony, Steyn, who un ironically refers to himself as a “human rights activist” (he isn’t) takes to task Judge Natalia Combs Greene, who was on the DC Appeals court earlier in the history of the Mann law suit, using what might be considered racist code words (Note: Judge Greene is African American). He referred to the “benighted jurisdiction” in which “the case was assigned to Natalia Combs Greene, a since reprimanded landlord-and-tenant judge appointed by President Clinton…After a botched ruling in which she confused the parties, she said the case was “complicated” and shuffled it off on a colleague…”

Yes, the dog-whistles are hard to hear, but that is why we call them dog whistles. The mention of appointment of a confused, shuffling judge by a Democratic president with links to the landlord-tenant court is clear enough, though, that when Steyn then moves on to Judge Vanessa Ruiz, a hispanic judge who currently sits on the court, we can see similar echoes of intolerance and innuendo. According to Steyn’s written Congressional testimony, “Judge Ruiz is an activist judge [with] an appalling backlog of cases” and various failings. “…it may be,” he told Congress, “that the judge is just an incompetent sloth who’s spending far too much time with the Carnegie Endowment working on world peace.”

Elsewhere in the testimony, Steyn claims Judge Greene “is not competent to rule” and “Judge Vanessa Ruiz is so lethargic that … global warming will have kicked in” first. Steyn goes further to note that the issue at hand in this law suit properly belongs in what the English judge Lord Moulton referred to as the “Domain of Manners.” This is the set of social rules by which proper people, proper English people, act properly, without having to be told how to act by some judge.

It is hard to observe these comments and not come away feeling assailed by class bias, racist innuendo, and self serving biased rhetoric.

Mark Steyn’s Use Of Ted Cruz’s Congressional Committee

But, actually, I digress, because while the racist subtext is important, it is not what struck me as most odd. What struck me as odd was the apparent fact that Mark Steyn appeared before the US Congress in order to argue his side of a law suit in the Washington DC Appeals Court. I assume that to some extent members of congress have some idea of what a given witness will provide in a hearing, so a second question emerges. Did the majority in this subcommittee intentionally provide a litigant in a law suit with the opportunity to argue their case?

And Steyn does use his written and oral testimony to argue the case, in a few ways. First, he simply argues that the law suit is invalid, and in a few places, argues that people should view Dr. Mann suspiciously. In other words, he says that he, Steyn, is right, and Mann is both wrong and a bad person. Second, he argues as I note above, and in other places in the testimony, that the judges on the Appeals Court are incompetent and biased in various ways. Third, he argues that the Washington DC Appeals Court is itself a rather messed-up judicial body. He told the US Congress that he has been “ensnared in the dysfunctional court system of the District of Columbia,” which is “a sclerotic and incompetent … court system … incapable of serving the people it’s meant to serve.,” which has “feckless lethargic judges … reward serial plaintiffs for nuisance suits.” And so on.

So, here is my question. Is this normal? Do people get to argue their legal cases in front of Congress? Does Congress normally, or even occasionally, bring people in as witnesses for this purpose? Or is this simply Mark Steyn taking advantage of the odd fact that he was asked to testify as an expert in something he admitted (as part of his testimony) that he is not an expert on?

Does Mark Steyn Need Better Legal Advice?

I asked around a bit, imposing on colleagues who have some experience with congressional testimony and various legal affairs. The general consensus seems to be that while grandstanding before congress is common, arguing your legal case in this manner is not. Indeed, one lawyer told me that he would never advise a client to do what Steyn has done (or, for that matter, what he does here) while in the middle of a court case. I has also been suggested that Steyn has, perhaps, been filing his briefings in the case separately from the other defendants precisely because they do not agree with his shock-jock strategy.

Was Ted Cruz using Mark Steyn as a tool? Was Mark Steyn using the Congress of the United States of America as a tool? Either seems a possibility. My advice to both: If you are going to use a tool, try to find a sharp one.

laden

I just realized that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a brief with the court in relation to Mann vs. the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Review, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg (variously). This is disappointing and will probably color my opinion of EFF going forward on whatever else they do. Their brief isn’t just ethically wrong, or something I disagree with. It is unintelligent and poorly considered. They simply got it wrong, as though they did not know anything about the law suit. It is embarrassing.

I wonder how they got talked/roped into this? I would really like to know that.

Anyway, I wrote them a letter and here it is:

To whom it may concern,

I’m generally a supporter of the things Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) stands for, but I object strenuously to your amicus brief and it’s meaning in relation to the suit brought by Michael Mann against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Review, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg.

Your brief makes the argument that open discussion of important public issues should not be fettered by law suits of this type. You are correct in principle but you have erred in this case. Mann’s suit is not about open public debate, and he has as a scientist been involved in open public debate in far more ways than most individuals have ever been. I’ll add that Mann’s research is all open source or open access with respect to data, methods, software, and results.

The suit is not about debate. It is about defamation. This is not a matter of interpretation. While one might (incorrectly) feel defamed when someone disagrees, Mann’s suit is not about that sort of reaction. It is about actual defamation.

Perhaps Mann is wrong. Perhaps the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Review, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg have not engaged in defamation with specific statements they have made. But that can be determined in court. Mann has the right to sue for this. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Review, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg have engaged in plenty of other forms of debate and public discourse regarding climate change and Mann’s research, but that is not at issue in this suit. You have failed to make that important distinction.

And please don’t make the mistake, or should I say, perpetuate the mistake you have already made (collectively with others), that opposition to Mann’s science is part of that defamation. It is not. Nor is science denialism or the seemingly nefarious distribution of false information about climate change by science skeptics or supporters of the fossil fuel industry part of this defamation. The National Review and other parties in this suit have lied, misrepresented, and also, simply gotten the science wrong. That is not what this is about, that is not the subject of Mann’s suit. This suit is about specific defamatory statements made as a much smaller subset of the communication and rhetoric among these parties.

It is a little embarrassing that EFF, usually much more thoughtful and intelligent about its decisions and activism, has somehow been roped into signing on to essentially support this defamatory practice. Shame on you.

I urge you do withdraw your support of the appeal as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Greg Laden

More information here.

This is also relevant, from here:

“The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits,” said a DC Superior Court judge in her latest procedural ruling in the defamation case of Michael Mann v. National Review, et al. “The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that ‘actual malice’ is present in the [National Review’s] conduct.”

…

The Court clearly recognizes that some members involved in the climate-change discussions and debates employ harsh words. The NR Defendants are reputed to use this manner of speech; however there is a line between rhetorical hyperbole and defamation. In this case, the evidence before the Court demonstrates that something more than mere rhetorical hyperbole is, at least at this stage present. Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of words such as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. …

The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct. …

The court clearly understands the difference between people whinging about science details, science denialism, etc. on one hand and what may be categorized as defamation.

Anti-Science NRO and CEI File New Briefs, Get It Wrong Again

Posted by Greg Laden on September 29, 2014

This is about the law suit filed by Michael Mann against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Review, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg because of accusations they made that were actionable. Michael Halpern summarized:

Competitive Enterprise Institute’s space technology and policy analyst, Rand Simberg, recently wrote a blog post in which he compared Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann to former university football coach and convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. CEI published the post on its own blog, and the National Review decided it was appropriate to pass along. Michael Mann has rightly demanded that the National Review retract the blog post and issue a public apology.

The most offensive section of the CEI post, which has since been scrubbed:

“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.”

There has been a lot of back and forth in the legal proceedings, and the latest is summarized by Aaron Huertas:

The latest round of legal briefs have been filed in climate scientist Michael Mann’s lawsuit against the National Review (NRO) and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). …

NRO makes a distinction between calling Dr. Mann’s work “fraudulent” and alleging that he had, for instance, embezzled funds or fabricated raw data.

Indeed, there are gradations of accusations one can make against a researcher. Stating that a scientist is wrong in their analysis is a far cry from saying their work is shoddy, but both are normal parts of public discourse about science. It’s another thing entirely to accuse a scientist of manipulating data or knowingly using faulty methods to reach a pre-determined conclusion. …

The worst thing one can do to a scientist professionally is to accuse him or her of fraud. More commonly, scientists refer to fraud as “scientific misconduct” or “research misconduct.” …

While the original research Dr. Mann’s and his colleagues conducted 15 years ago was certainly subject to criticisms and scrutiny, it held up to that scrutiny, and nobody ever made the case that it was fraudulent

…

CEI’s legal brief rehashes investigations of scientists after a hacker (or hackers) stole emails from them in 2009.

Dr. Mann’s lawyers cite all the investigations in their brief. That makes sense since all the investigations are related and none found that Dr. Mann—or his colleagues—were guilty of scientific misconduct or fraud

But CEI attempts to argue that these investigations were somehow insufficient. Regarding the two investigations that did focus specifically on Dr. Mann, CEI tries to downplay how serious they were. They write that Penn State’s committee looked at whether or not Dr. Mann “falsified data” and claimed that the “inquiry committee simply reviewed some of the [stolen] emails, spoke with Mann, and then dismissed it.” They also write the National Science Foundation “did not conduct an investigation of Mann’s data practices or research because it determined that ‘no direct evidence has been presented that indicates the Subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results.’

…In reality, these investigations were far more thorough than CEI suggests. …These latest filings only reinforce my view that attacks against Dr. Mann are ideological and political in nature, not based on an actual assessment of his work.

You can read the rest, and more detail, here.

As you may know, we have been having a lengthy discussion here about the original work done by Mann and his colleagues. Feel free to join in! Regarding the research itself, this is very simple. Mann and his colleagues attempted to look simultaneously at some “paleorecords” … indications from ancient sources of temperature … and the modern “instrumental record” (i.e., from thermometers) to see if the already observed increase in temperatures thought to be linked to anthropogenic global warming really does stick out like a sore thumb among temperatures going back longer in time. The result of that study was, essentially, a graph combining ancient data and modern data that looked like a hockey stick laying on its back:

The original northern hemisphere hockey stick graph of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999, smoothed curve shown in blue with its uncertainty range in light blue, overlaid with green dots showing the 30-year global average of the PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 reconstruction. The red curve shows measured global mean temperature, according to HadCRUT4 data from 1850 to 2013. From Wikipedia.

There are three ways in which this research could be questioned. First, it was only of the Northern Hemisphere, not global. Second, it is possible that the particular observations of modern temperature, the instrumental record, was somehow incorrect or biased. Third, it is possible that even though this graph shows the modern increase in temperatures as extreme, maybe the older data is bad, or maybe if you went back further in time (and globally) you’d find pre-industrial (prior to the release of so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) periods that are warmer than today, suggesting that the underlying assumption of how greenhouse gases might be wrong.

Even at the time, though, these objections were weak. While the Norther and Southern Hemispheres may (and do) act somewhat differently from each other, they are not as out of sync as they would have to be for the basic hockey stick graph to be wrong. The instrumental data was certainly not as perfect as one might like, but it was pretty darn good data. For the last few million years, during the course of human evolution and the evolution of our current ecology, there was no reason to believe that there were periods much warmer than today, if at all.

But subsequent research was done, of course, and several findings support, refine, and expand on the hockey stick model. Additional studies of modern temperatures showed results very similar to the data used by Mann and colleagues. At least two studies look at biases (one looked at the possibility of false warming caused by urban heat island effects, another looked at areas of the Earth that are under-sampled by direct observation). Both found that the hockey stick curve was either pretty much correct for instrumental data, or actually possibly a bit lower in temperature than reality.

Of course, the entire study was extended globally, confirming this as a global pattern.

Work on paleo information extended the range of the hockey stick graph way back in time, and showed that during the Holocene (last 10,000 years) there was not a period warmer than today. Further work seems to indicate that even during among interglacial periods (we are in an interglacial now) things are warmer now than usual. It turns out that you almost certaily have to go back in time several hundred thousand years, possibly several million years, to get a time period as warm as today.

Most importantly, per has, as time has passed since the original hockey stick curve was produced, the globe has gotten warmer. The air and sea surface are warmer, though the amount of warming has been modest compared to what we would expect for a simple model where greenhouse gasses only warm the atmosphere. But a lot of heat is being absorbed by the ocean, it turns out. The true surface temperature of the planet has to include both the atmosphere and the ocean (both surface and at depth) and we think over 95% of the extra heat from global warming goes into the deep ocean, but it is not well measured.

Meanwhile the whole “Hockey Stick” controversy continued and developed. This isn’t just a couple of people and a major conservative publication falsely accusing Michael Mann of fraudulent behavior (scientific misconduct). Anti-science forces have spent millions of dollars attempting, usually very clumsily, climate science, and one or more individuals went so far as to steal emails among climate scientist, falsifying using cherry picking what was said in those emails. It is an all out war between anti-science and anti-environment groups and individuals on one hand vs. scientists and rightfully concerned citizens on the other. A great description of how these “Hockey Stick Wars” played out can be found in this book.

The Volokh Conspiracy

Mann v. Steyn – Mann wins round two

BY JONATHAN H. ADLER January 23

On Wednesday, Judge Frederick Weisberg handed climate scientist Michael Mann a potentially significant victory in his defamation suit against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In a relatively brief order, Judge Weisberg denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery in the suit. He explained:

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

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.

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 denial of a motion to dismiss under D.C.’s anti-SLAPP statute 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.

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.)

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:

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.

UPDATE: More reactions from Steyn here and here.

[Note: I've updated some links in this post and added a disclosure below. JHA]

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.

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

rand simberg and CEI have:

DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR. (D.C. Bar No. 394446)

BRUCE D. BROWN (D.C. Bar No.457317)

MARK I. BAILEN (D.C. Bar No. 459623)

ANDREW M. GROSSMAN (D.C. Bar No.

985166)

BAKERHOSTETLER LLP

Washington Square, Suite 1100

1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW

mann case: since split? not at NRO

Case No 2012 CA 008263 B

Judge: Frederick H Weisberg

NATIONAL REVIEW, INC )

215 Lexington Avenue )

New York, NY 10016, )

)

and - )

)

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE )

1899 L Street, NW )

Washington, DC 20036, )

)

and - )

)

RAND SIMBERG )

c/o Competitive Enterprise )

Institute )

1899 L Street, NW )

Washington, DC 20036, )

)

and - )

)

MARK STEYN, )

Box 30 )

Woodsville, NH 03785 )

)

Defendants.

The National Review magazine, longstanding house news organ of the establishment right, is facing a lawsuit that could shutter the publication permanently. According to The Week, a suit by a climate scientist threatens to bankrupt the already financially shaky publication and its website, the National Review Online (NRO).

Scientist Michael Mann is suing the Review over statements made by Canadian right-wing polemicist and occasional radio stand-in for Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn. Steyn was writing on the topic of climate change when he accused Mann of falsifying data and perpetuating intellectual fraud through his research.

Steyn went on to quote paid anti-climate science operative Rand Simberg — an employee of the right-wing think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute — who compared Mann to Penn State’s convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/30/climate-scientists-lawsuit-could-wipe-out-conservative-national-review-magazine/

Mann, Simberg said, is “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

Mann sued for defamation. Steyn and the Review vowed to fight the suit, given that defamation is notoriously difficult to prove in court.

“My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else,” said Review editor Rich Lowry. “If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.”

As the case has played out, however, Lowry’s hubris has proven to be unwarranted.

“In July,” wrote The Week’s Damon Linker, “Judge Natalia Combs Greene rejected a motion to dismiss the suit. The defendants appealed, and last week D.C. Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion again, opening the door for the discovery phase of the lawsuit to begin.”

The Review, which has run at a loss since it was founded on money inherited by William F. Buckley, Jr. in 1955, appealed to readers and supporters for help paying its rapidly mounting legal bills.

Lowry wrote:

As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have. Of course, we’ll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain’t cheap.

The bills are already mounting.

This is our fight, legally. But with the global-warming extremists going all-out to silence critics, it’s your fight too, morally. When we were sued, we heard from many of you who expressed a desire to help underwrite our legal defense. We deeply appreciated the outpouring of promised help.

Now we really need it.

Then, at Christmastime, Steyn abruptly fired the legal team representing him and the magazine, white shoe firm Steptoe and Johnson, after an argument over a highly inflammatory — and appallingly typed — NRO post about Judge Combs Greene. Steyn accused her of “staggering incompetence,” called her stupid, and accused her of deliberate obtuseness regarding the Mann suit.

Now, Steyn is representing himself against Mann and he and the Review have parted ways.

Steyn wrote to Mother Jones, saying that he was simply no longer able to contain his sense of disdain for the federal judge and her decision not to dismiss Mann’s suit.

“I spent the first months attempting to conceal my contempt for Judge Combs Greene’s court,” said Steyn. “But really, it’s not worth the effort.”

On his personal blog, Steyn wrote, “As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team.”

Now, as the suit grinds onward, the Review faces fairly dismal prospects. The suit could eventually be dismissed, but that is looking less likely. What’s looking more likely is that Mann could win a substantial judgment in court or the magazine could settle out of court.

The Week doubts that the publication could financially survive either of those outcomes. In 2005, before his death, Buckley estimated that the Review had lost more than $25 million in its 50 years of operation. It has never enjoyed a single moment of robust financial health competing in the “free market of ideas,” but has relied on reader contributions and bailouts from wealthy donors for the entirety of its history.

Conservatives like to point Buckley’s legacy and the Review as the reasonable, moderate edge of an regressive, reactionary party. In its history, the magazine has consistently staked out far-right positions that favor whites over nonwhites and plutocrats over the middle and working classes.

National Review authors have railed against racial integration, called Hitler a left-wing radical, and argued with a straight face that African-Americans are inherently more violent and less civilized than whites.

Lowry himself famously declared “We’re winning” the War in Iraq just before catastrophic waves of sectarian violence engulfed the country and permanently scuttled the American-led reconstruction effort.

Lately contributor Mona Charen has authored a series of wildly LGBT-phobic articles, lamenting the mainstreaming of “unusual sexual identities” and accusing parents who allow their transgender children to be themselves of “child abuse.”

RIVKIN:

write laws/rig game then rev door to profit

. He also helped in the passing of the Clean Air Act (1990) and FERC Order 636, known as the Restructuring Rule, designed to allow more efficient use of the interstate natural gas transmission system by fundamentally changing the way pipeline companies conduct business.[13][15] During his term, national energy markets were deregulated.[12] ENRON?

RR model v B43?]

Torture Yoo, Rumsfeld,GITMO padilla, Scooter Libby ACA, RICO, DOE, H&W, Quayle

STEYN

agent

Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc., Stockade Publishing, LLC, AJ Promotions, LLC

Council for Advancement & Support of Education (CASE), United States Senate, Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Education

Saint Michael's College

Vice President

Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc.

2014 – Present (2 years)

Publisher

Stockade Publishing, LLC

June 2012 – Present (4 years 1 month)

AJ Promotions, LLC

Partner, Managing Director

AJ Promotions, LLC

1993 – Present (23 years)

formerly AJ Communications

Elective Session Speaker

Council for Advancement & Support of Education (CASE)

January 2012 – 2012 (less than a year)Greater New York City Area

Districts 1 & 2 Conference

Liaison

United States Senate

February 2001 – September 2008 (7 years 8 months)

Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Advisory Board Member

Susan G. Komen for the Cure

2005 – 2008 (3 years)

Founding Director

Vesta Roy Excellence in Public Service Series

2005 – 2008 (3 years)

Volunteer Judge

NH Bar Association Law Related Education Program

2005 – 2008 (3 years)

Founder & facilitator of annual selection process

Governor Thomson People Above Politics Award (NH GOP)

2002 – 2008 (6 years)

Chairwoman

Good Neighbor Health Clinic Annual Fundraiser

2002 – 2007 (5 years)

Delegate (elected)

NH Republican State Convention

1998 – 2006 (8 years)

Assistant to the Chairman for Recruitment

NH Republican State Committee

2001 – 2005 (4 years)

Board member

Governor's Entrepreneurial Task Force

2002 – 2004 (2 years)

Event Director (The Prouty)

Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth

February 2003 – August 2003 (7 months)

Chairman

Governor's North Country Inaugural Ball

November 2002 – January 2003 (3 months)

Clerk/ Treasurer (elected)

Orford School District

1998 – 2002 (4 years)

Executive Director

Republican Fund

1998 – 2001 (3 years)

Founding Director

THINK-NH

1998 – 2000 (2 years)

Vice-President

Fairlee Nursery School

1996 – 1997 (1 year)

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/publisher/stockade-books

archinform

1.) A Song For The Season

Mark Steyn

2008 [hardback] [English]

book2.) Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West

Mark Steyn

2009 [hardback] [English]

book3.) Mark Steyn From Head To Toe

Mark Steyn

2004 [paperback] [English]

book4.) Mark Steyn's American Songbook

Mark Steyn

2008 [hardback]

book5.) Mark Steyn's Passing Parade

Mark Steyn

2006 [paperback]

book6.) The Face of the Tiger

Mark Steyn

2002 [paperback]

book7.) »A Disgrace to the Profession«

Mark Steyn (editor), Josh (Illustrator/-in), Mark Steyn (Eds.)

2015 [First edition, paperback] [English]

2009 stockade

https://www.amazon.com/Lights-Out-Islam-Speech-Twilight/dp/0973157054/

also regn

https://www.amazon.com/After-America-Get-Ready-Armageddon/dp/1596983272/

regnery

https://www.amazon.com/Undocumented-Mark-Steyn/dp/1621573184/

Here you'll find the familiar Steyn themes: the fiscal horror that looms for the Brokest Nation in History, the existential threat of Islamic extremism, the metastasizing tyranny of political correctness, and the west's demographic suicide - "all the fun stuff," delivered in his signature laugh-a-minute apocalyptic doom-mongering style...

Explains why it matters which culture dominates your country

Exposes "the near suicidal stupidity of America's immigration regime"

Shows why you can't have a conservative government in a liberal culture

As 1973 Nobel Prize winner Professor Ivar Giaever said “Global Warming has become a new religion – because you can’t discuss it and that is not right.”

Editorial Reviews

Review

I recommend Steyn's book highly, because it really gets to the heart of the matter about that lack of scientific rigor in climate science that has become a poster child for noble cause corruption . - Anthony Watts --Watts Up With That

At a time when the U.S. and the world's nations are trying to put together an agreement to tackle climate change (for better or for worse), Steyn's book reminds everyone of Climategate, why the public doesn't trust climate scientists and aren't buying their "consensus". - Judith Curry --Climate Etc.

It's probably the longest, funniest, most savvily organized and meticulous "screw you" in the history of Western literature. - Laura Rosen Cohen --endofyourarm.com

About the Author

Editor Mark Steyn is the author of the international bestsellers America Alone and After America, and a contributor to the recent Number One bestseller on Amazon's Climatology Hit Parade, Climate Change: The Facts. His latest CD is Goldfinger.

Average Customer Review: 4.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (417 customer reviews)

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,921 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

#2 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Environmental Policy

#27 in Books > Biographies & Memoirs > Professionals & Academics > Scientists

Amazon's Climatology and Environment chart

"A Disgrace to the Profession" by Mark Steyn (editor) Paperback $15.98

Climate Change: The Facts by J.Abbot Paperback $15.89

Global Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks at the Science of Climate… by G. Dedrick Robinson Paperback $14.95

Climate Change: The Facts

by J.Abbot (Author), J.S. Armstrong (Author), A.Bolt (Author), R.Carter (Author), R.Darwall (Author), J.Delingpole (Author), C.Essex (Author), S.Franks (Author), K.Green (Author), D.Laframboise (Author), N.Lawson (Author), B.Lewin (Author), R.Lindzen (Author), J.Marohasy (Author), R.McKitrick (Author), P.Michaels (Author), A.Moran (Author), J.Nova (Author), G.Paltridge (Author), I.Plimer (Author), W.Soon (Author), M.Steyn (Author), A.Watts (Author), Alan Moran (Editor)

An excellent new book --Barbara Kay, The National Post (Canada)

A fascinating new book --Matt Ridley, Quadrant (Australia)

A great gift for any friend with an open mind who enjoys a good read --Jay Lehr, PhD, The Heartlander

About the Author

The authors of Climate Change: The Facts number some of the most prominent dissenters from Big Climate alarmism, including scientists Richard S Lindzen and Willie Soon, recently targeted by grandstanding congressmen seeking to get them fired from their jobs; Nigel Lawson, Britain's former Chancellor of the Exchequer; Ross McKitrick, whose analysis inflicted irreparable damage on the famous global-warming "hockey stick"; and Mark Steyn, currently being sued by the creator of the self-same hockey stick, Michael E Mann, in a landmark free-speech case. Plus John Abbot & Jennifer Marohasy, Andrew Bolt, Robert M Carter, Rupert Darwall, James Delingpole, Christopher Essex, Stewart W Franks, Kesten C Green & J Scott Armstrong, Donna Laframboise, Bernie Lewin, Patrick J Michaels, Joanne Nova, Garth W Paltridge, Ian Plimer and Anthony Watts

Paperback: 336 pages

Publisher: Stockade Books; First edition (April 21, 2015)

Language: English

ISBN-10: 0986398306

ISBN-13: 978-0986398308

Stockade Books and The Institute of Public Affairs [entine?] are proud to publish Climate Change: The Facts, featuring essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts features the world's leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts include:

Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.

Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called 'sceptics'. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the 'hockey stick' controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.

Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing 'Ship of Fools' expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don't know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.

J.Abbot

4.4 out of 5 stars 446

Global Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks at the Science of Climate Change

G. Dedrick Robinson [2 names? son 3rd liar potbliler fiction?]

lobal Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers: A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change, brings a unique geological perspective to this politically charged issue, a perspective that has been ignored far too long. Written by a father-son team of geoscientist and attorney, it is the concise guide to the global warming controversy that has been long needed. As a university professor and research geologist for thirty years, Dr. Robinson knows that geological science is essential for placing the global warming controversy in proper prospective. One cannot hope to understand how humans might be causing climate change without an understanding of the magnitude and speed natural processed are capable of when it comes to climate change. Earth history is the only yardstick we have to determine whether recent climate change is unusual or not. Yet, inexplicably, a vast repository of geologic data has been ignored in this contentious issue. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers was written to correct this oversight.

This book has been years in the making. It follows the outline Dr. Robinson used successfully for many years in a college classes taken by large numbers of students. Using an easy-to-understand question and answer format, the fourteen chapters of the book cover systematically all the major scientific issues of global warming. With more than three hundred references to peer-reviewed science journal articles and numerous illustrations, it shows how the scientific underpinnings of the global warming theory are actually weak and uncertain

Dr. Robinson is the author of numerous scientific articles in national and international journals. His background in teaching a wide variety of geology courses has shown him how to present difficult scientific concepts in a way that is understandable and interesting to non-scientists. He has chaired sessions at scientific conferences, led seminars for science teachers, served as the head at two different college geology departments and was interviewed on a television network. His co-author and son, an attorney experienced in argumentative rhetoric, has helped him hone in on the erroneously based assumptions underlying activists' arguments. He has also served as a sounding board for areas where the writing, intended for a general audience, needed to be less technical. Together, this unique father-son team present a well thought out and fully documented discussion of the global warming theory without impugning anyone's sincerity, motives or personal integrity. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers covers the science of global warming, but unlike many other books, not the politics.

--published novels: "The Seventh Deception-A Novel of the Nazi Atomic Bomb"; "The Last Lion of Sparta"; and "Blood Scourge-Is the end of human kind finally at hand?" He is also the author of the non-fiction book "Global Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers: A Geoscientist Looks at the Science of Climate Change."

His writings, including science articles, adventure articles, car articles and short fiction, have appeared in such varied formats as professional science journals, newspapers, literary journals and history journals.

Dr. Robinson has started a new venture, Moonshine Cove Publishing, LLC, to publish both fiction and nonfiction

[ron johson prepper blackjack?

]