RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/defacing-the-constitution-should-land-you-in-prison/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=

Among this past week’s brainless and woke happenings (but I repeat myself), one event in particular stuck out. Two “climate activists” decided that desecrating the nation’s most sacred document, the U.S. Constitution, was the best way to garner support for their cause.

These two men — who look like malnourished vegans paying out-of-pocket for a Ph.D. in Peace Studies — dumped reddish-pink powder over themselves and the Constitution’s display case on Wednesday afternoon.

Why the reddish-pink powder? Who knows. (It probably symbolizes the blood of an endangered wombat, or something.) What is certain, however, is that the particulate substance has been hard to remove.

Subsequent analysis revealed that the powder dumped on the case was a mixture of pigment powder and cornstarch. The resulting substance was so fine that an industrial vacuum could hardly pick it up, nor could the powdered pigment be cleaned with water because it would just turn into paint.

While none of the substance penetrated the bulletproof case, the stunt still proved a headache for the Archives staff to clean and forced the National Archives to stay closed for days — a major letdown for all of the families visiting the capital with the express purpose of making a pilgrimage to the text’s temple.

The pasty duo enacted their stunt unhindered by the “security guards” at the National Archives. Nearly four minutes passed before the clods were stopped.

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/02/13/our-crazy-cousins-north-of-the-border/

If there ever were a sign that Canada has gone cuckoo, it has to be a bill introduced in Parliament that would censor speech about fossil fuel. No, we’re not joking, though we hope the bill’s author is. We fear, however, he isn’t.

One Charlie Angus, a New Democratic Party member of the House of Commons from Timmins–James Bay in Ontario, has brought before that chamber Bill C-372. It clearly states that “it is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element or the production of a fossil fuel except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations.”

Under the legislation, it is further “prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel or the production of a fossil fuel … i​​n a manner that states or suggests that a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy; or … by using terms, expressions, logos, symbols or illustrations that are prohibited by the regulations.”

Does “nuts” adequately describe the thinking behind this bill? It is most certainly outrageous.

If we read the Canadian version of English correctly, merely pointing out the indisputable fact that civilization would break down without fossil fuels would be a lawbreaking offense. So would arguing that vehicles with internal combustion engines are better for the environment than trendy electric vehicles, or pointing out that natural gas is a cheaper, more reliable source of energy that wind and solar.

The punishment depends on which provisions are violated, with the most punitive corrective measures being $1.5 million fines and two-year prison terms.

Not all Canadians are crazy, of course. Yet the effete, shallow yet odious Justin Trudeau is in his third term as prime minister, so there is an abundance of poor thinking among the electorate.

ttps://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=90d2677a69

The last day of trial, yesterday, was devoted to jury instructions and closing arguments. Unfortunately, I had to miss the opening argument from Mann’s counsel John Williams. But I was then able to listen to almost the entire argument of Simberg’s counsel Victoria Weatherford, the entire argument by Mark Steyn on his own behalf, and the entire final rebuttal from Mr. Williams.

My overall comment on the closings of Ms. Weatherford and Mr. Steyn is that they were straightforward reviews of the evidence, or lack thereof, as it applied to each element of the claims, as those had been outlined by the judge in the jury instructions. Because Mann had presented little to know relevant evidence, the closings were quite devastating. Ms. Weatherford’s approach was more an item-by-item review of how plaintiff had failed to prove each element, while Steyn focused more on a few particularly noteworthy issues; but both were well within norms for this type of argument. By contrast, Williams’s rebuttal was almost entirely off point and/or improper. He drew repeated (and correct) objections, several of them sustained, ultimately forcing the judge to re-read to the jury the entire instruction as to the elements and burdens of proof for defamation in order to correct an incorrect statement of the law made by Mr. Williams.

In general, I have great faith in juries. And in this case, where my view is that the evidence strongly favors the defense, it should be an easy decision. However, given the highly charged politics of the subject matter, I do not have confidence in how the jury will come out.

The Jury Instructions

The instructions had been negotiated between the plaintiff and defendants, and mostly came from standard forms. There may have been some objections that one side or the other had preserved, but that was not mentioned publicly. Although I am not an expert in defamation law, the instructions seemed to me to be a fair summary of the law, with the exception that I was surprised that the phrase “actual malice” was not used. However, the instructions did use the words that I understand to be the operative definition of that “actual malice.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/d-c-jury-awards-1m-in-damages-to-suppress-climate-denialism/

It’s hard to believe, but this Mann case has been wending through the courts for over a decade. It’s the Jarndyce case of the conservative vs. environmentalist movement whose purpose was to silence dissent.

That was explicitly the point all along.

The two also had a heated exchange over a private email Mann wrote in 2012, in which he said it was his “hope” that through the lawsuit he could “ruin this pathetic excuse for a human being,” referring to Steyn.

Back in 2012, this whole thing seemed like a ridiculous joke. And back then it was. But with enough money and lawyers, the case kept going because it also tracked the descent of the American Left into lawless totalitarianism which abused the legal system in order to silence political opponents.

The judicial wrangle began in 2012, when climatologist Michael E. Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University and climate-change activist, sued National Review and pundits Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, claiming that they had libeled him in a series of blog posts. On National Review’s website, Steyn commented on an article by Simberg, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Simberg likened Mann’s research on global warming to Penn State’s cover-up in the case of Jerry Sandusky, Penn State’s former assistant football coach and a convicted child molester. Simberg called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” except that instead of molesting children, Mann had “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.” Though Steyn distanced himself from the Sandusky analogy, he noted that Mann was the scientist behind the controversial “hockey-stick” graph, which purports to depict a sharp rise in global temperatures in recent years. Steyn called the graph “fraudulent.”

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/02/09/the-invasive-species-that-is-renewable-energy/

The ruling class’ obsession with building a carbon dioxide-free world has blinded it to material facts. The Al Gores and Gavin Newsoms and John Kerrys of the West believe they only have to bark orders and seize other people’s money and their green dreams will be realized. When are they going to understand their wishes are not everyone else’s command?

There are many examples of the ruling class’ failure to recognize its limitations in regard to energy. The electric vehicle backlash comes to mind. So do the many green “investments” that have turned out to be financial holes of a different color.

For this commentary, though, we’re focusing on the breakdown of the renewable infrastructure buildout. The hard truth is that people don’t want wind and solar farms overtaking their communities and chewing up rural land. The resistance is so forceful that a number of counties have banned the projects inside their borders.

“Across America, clean energy plants are being banned faster than they’re being built,” says the USA Today headline from last week.

After the obligatory nonsense about how green energy is necessary because humans are setting the planet on fire, which is found daily across the hysterical mainstream media, the reporters note that “at least 15% of counties in the U.S. have effectively halted new utility-scale wind, solar, or both.” Through its nationwide analysis, USA Today learned that “limits come through outright bans, moratoriums, construction impediments and other conditions that make green energy difficult to build.” 

And it’s not just local governments. Three states, ​​Connecticut, Tennessee and Vermont, have “implemented near-statewide restrictions,” according to USA Today.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/after-12-years-michael-manns-defamation-case-against-mark-steyn-finally-goes-to-the-jury/

A Washington, D.C., jury on Thursday ordered conservative pundit Mark Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages to climate scientist Michael Mann, determining that he was defamed in a 2012 blog post on National Review’s website.

The jury also ordered science writer Rand Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages for defaming him in a blog post on the website of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Mann also won $1 from each writer in compensatory damages from the six-person jury after a trial that started in mid-January and lasted three weeks.

The jury’s decision for Mann could have important implications for the free-speech rights of critics to comment on controversial matters without fear of legal reprisals. In a statement before the jury’s verdict Simberg said the case was about “the ability of myself and others to speak freely about the most important issues of our day, whether climate change or another issue,” according to the Associated Press. “If others are faced with over a decade of litigation for giving their opinions, we will all suffer.”

The case involved blog posts that Simberg and Steyn made over a decade ago criticizing Mann’s science and his “hockey stick” graph, which shows global temperature spiking over the last century or so. In his post on CEI’s website, Simberg accused Mann of molesting and torturing his data, and made a crude analogy between Penn State University’s investigation of Mann and its investigation of Jerry Sandusky, the school’s former football coach convicted of child molestation.

In his post on the Corner section of National Review‘s website, Steyn distanced himself from the Sandusky analogy, but added that “he has a point.” He wrote that “Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” a reference to climate data obtained through the analysis of tree rings.

The jury found that both Simberg and Steyn had defamed Mann, that they had asserted or relied on provably false statements, that they had a high degree of awareness that their statements were probably false, and acted with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance, or deliberate intent” to harm Mann. The jury also found that Mann suffered actual injuries because of the blog posts.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/after-12-years-michael-manns-defamation-case-against-mark-steyn-finally-goes-to-the-jury/

After nearly 12 years, a jury will finally decide whether conservative pundit Mark Steyn and science writer Rand Simberg defamed climate scientist Michael Mann in blog posts that accused him of misconduct and compared Penn State University’s investigation of him to its investigation of Jerry Sandusky, the school’s child-molesting former football coach.

The case has important implications for the free-speech rights of critics to comment freely on controversial matters without fear of legal reprisals.

The jury began deliberating around 4 p.m.

During closing arguments on Wednesday, Mann’s attorney, John Williams told the jury that the statements against his client were “clearly” defamatory, the comparison to Sandusky was direct, and it “implied that he was the moral

He said that Mann was “horrified” by the comparison to Sandusky, felt like a “pariah,” and “it still affects him emotionally.” He said that the blog posts on the websites of National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute led to a drop in Mann’s grant funding.

He said Simberg’s conduct was “reckless” because he “never, ever took the time to read the actual studies he was attacking.” He called Mann’s hockey stick graph, which shows spiking global temperatures over the last century, a “brick house.”

“People huff and they puff, and they have not been able to blow it down,” he said.

But Victoria Weatherford, Simberg’s attorney, said that her client “truly believed in his heart” that what he wrote was true, and his blog post was protected by the First Amendment.

“Professor Mann is a public figure, and our First Amendment makes sure that each of us is free to comment on the most important issues of public concern without fear of being censored or silenced or bullied into submission,” she said.

“Rand is just a guy, just a blogger voicing his truly-held opinions on a topic that he believes is important,” she said, “and that is an inconvenient truth for Michael Mann.”

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-6-trial-of-mann-v-steyn-part-iv-the-defense-case

The trial of Michael Mann versus Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg is nearing its conclusion in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

The court’s livestream feed makes it possible for people like me to observe the proceedings from home. However, they only show to the home viewers the same things that the jury gets to see and hear, and not necessarily all of that either. For example, some exhibits that are shown to the jury on an easel in the courtroom are not visible on the video feed. Also, many things happen in the courtroom that the jury is not allowed to watch or hear — the general idea being that the jury is supposed to base its decision only on evidence that gets “admitted” by the judge, and therefore anything that is not evidence is not something they can participate in. So when the lawyers argue legal issues before the judge — mostly about what can be admitted into evidence — the jury can’t hear it, and they also mute the video feed to home viewers. Other colloquy between the judge and the lawyers, often on administrative matters, is generally muted. Of about 5 1/2 hours of trial time each day, often an hour or more has been muted.

And thus it is not entirely clear to me that tomorrow is the last day of trial. But there was a stray unmuted remark from the judge on Monday that he hoped the jury would “get the case” on Wednesday. That means that closing arguments are likely to be tomorrow.

The last two days, Monday and Tuesday, have seen the presentation of the guts of the defense case. These were the main witnesses: Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, authors of a series of papers in the early 2000s that dissected Mann’s work and discovered several serious flaws; two members of the Penn State “Inquiry” Committee, that investigated Mann after the release of the ClimateGate emails in late 2009, and made no adverse finding against Mann (Mann has claimed that he was “exonerated”); and Eugene Wahl, a climate scientist and collaborator of Mann who had deleted certain emails that were subject to FOIA requests after Mann forwarded him a request to do so.

What follows are what I thought were some of the more significant highlights. Obviously, there is much that I have omitted. Also, I should note that I am a terrible note-taker. Also, many of the exhibits appeared quickly on the screen, without sufficient time to copy their contents accurately. So I have done my best, but I solicit any corrections from others who may have been watching.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-2-4-face-it-the-energy-transition-aint-happening

If you are at all interested in matters of climate and energy, you have probably read hundreds of articles over the past few years about the inevitability of the coming energy transition. A piece of the claimed inevitability is that all good and decent people support this transition as a matter of moral urgency; but it’s not just that. Nor is it just that government backs the transition with all its coercive powers, from subsidies to mandates to regulations. No, most importantly, the transition is said to have become inevitable due to unstoppable economic forces. Wind and solar are now the least expensive ways to generate electricity! Electric vehicles are superior and are taking over the market! And the legacy fossil fuel producers who refuse to change their ways are seeing their huge investments become “stranded assets” that can no longer compete in the new world and must be written off!

Well, look to Manhattan Contrarian as your go-to source for news on how this supposed energy transition is going. The summary is that all the mandates and regulations and trillions of dollars in subsidies in the world can’t make the impossible happen. Here are a few items from the past week:

Shareholder activists demand that BP re-commit to oil and gas.

The last few years have seen many examples of shareholder activists submitting proxy proposals demanding that the major oil and gas companies reduce their carbon emissions and commit to transition out of the oil and gas business. As one significant example, in 2021 an activist investor called Engine #1 demanded that Exxon commit to this transition. In a proxy contest in May 2021, Engine #1 succeeded in electing two directors to the Exxon board over management’s opposition.