I see my comment in the second article of this blog was prescient.
Like a bad penny, Kelly Anspaugh was also at Crock of the Week.
And after a year of blog inactivity, you show up to comment within days of a fresh post, and continue to do so. It appears you are going to be a feature of this blog. Fair enough, I gave you some stick and you want some payback. I wouldn’t deny you your right of reply.
To address your latest observation:
Yes, you denialists do have a number of “technical terms” to describe Mr. Mann. If you don’t mention them here, it’s because you’re afraid that doing so might result in your ending up where your friend Mr. Steyn has ended up. He’s been booted at NRO, he’s parted ways with his defense team — basically the guy is up sh-t crick without a paddle, as we Yanks say. A shame when such bad things happen to such good people!
Let’s see, in the article before the one you commented on I said
Mann’s interpretation of the Sandusky comment is fake. His outrage is fake. His hockey stick is a fake. And he is a fake.
In the article before that
… my general assessment of him as a lying, cowardly, vindictive, little shit …
Also at the end of the last article I compared Mann to the drug-dealing Walter White, (but concluded Mann was not the better man) and posted a large satirical image where Mann holds an oversize “Nobel Prize for Fraudulence”. And my concluding words were:
And the fraudulence of the hockey stick (my own take) will be covered in separate articles.
Considering that Mann is suing Steyn for calling his hockey stick “fraudulent”; and he threatened to sue the makers of a satirical video for improper use of his image; and considering that I have posted Climategate emails and that PEER and CSLDF, the entities backing Mann’s litigation have threatened
all activists, bloggers, and other journalists to immediately remove all of these documents and any quotations taken from them, from their blogs, Web sites, and publications, and to publish retractions.
to pursue all possible actionable civil remedies to the fullest extent of the law.
I really don’t get how you think I am pulling punches,
afraid that doing so might result in your ending up where your friend Mr. Steyn has ended up.
For the record. I don’t want to be sued. I really, really don’t want to be sued. I don’t have the funds (certainly not the $1/2 million Steyn et al have already expended) to defend against such an action. Neither do I have faith in the judicial system to always deliver justice. If I defended myself, as Steyn is doing, lawyers smarter than me (about the law and probably in general) would probably run rings round me. The defamation laws in the U.K. are draconian compared to the U.S.A. I am under no illusion about the risks I face, bankruptcy and worse, or the forces potentially arrayed against me.
Also, for the record, and for the avoidance of any doubt: I stand by everything I have written on this blog and at WUWT. I will continue to write about Mann and seek information and arguments that may help Steyn in his battle. For me, the important issue is free speech (including yours Kelly).
To put it bluntly, I refuse to be intimidated by a cowardly, conniving, caviling, contemptible, little shit like Michael Mann or by his cohorts.
Lest you think you have succeeded in goading me into stepping over some line, note that the genesis of the Walter White comparison was evident on my blog more than a year ago. I have other things to say which I have been mulling over for some time, things which would undoubtedly be defamation if they could not be substantiated. Again for the avoidance of any doubt, some of those things will not be figurative or hyperbole. They will be said in the strictest, literal, legal, sue-my-pants-off-if-I’m-wrong way. So grab some popcorn Kelly, cause I ain’t done yet.
Regarding your previous comment,
Yes, Lima as in the bean. Actually I live in Ada, OH — just in case you were planning a special investigative trip to peek in my windows.
I have no intention of “investigating” you further. And if I did I would not seek out, or seek to publish, any personal details like your home address. I limited my examination of you to material you had willingly posted online. As you yourself said.
I’d love my opinion of you and your organization to be on file somewhere. Then let history judge. … I’d love as well for you to contact my attorney. His name is Jeff Ruch. He is executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. His email is email@example.com. You might be hearing quite a lot from him and his organization in future. I certainly hope so.
Dr. Kelly Anspaugh
Department of English
If you are still concerned about an invasion of your privacy, note the first article I ever posted in the climate debate was directed against people who do just that.
Also note my response to someone else who expressed similar concerns as you imply.
So far you have called me a “denialist drool” and more and I have opined
I think an appropriate end for Anspaugh would be to listen to the “excremental soup” of his own lectures for all eternity. I’m sure some of his former students would agree.
We could continue to exchange insults for eternity or, I propose, we could actually engage in debate. I don’t expect it to set new standards in decorum and civility. I do expect you to use the full rhetorical armoury of an English lit. lecturer.
As is well known most warmists don’t engage in debate with “flat-earthers” as “the debate is over” and “the science is settled”. But there is one debate that the same warmists are very much engaged in. It is to answer the question “Why do deniers deny” (to paraphrase and use their terminology).
You taught a “university course on the discourses of science denial” so clearly we “deniers” are of more than passing interest to you, and you apparently claim some expertise in the subject.
A debate between us would not be between two scientists, neither of us are. Although either of us may use some scientific arguments (I would), neither of us is sufficiently qualified to understand much of the science. So both of us would have to explain why we believe some scientists and not others. I, for example, would have to explain my temerity in doubting “97%” of scientists.
Neither of us are authorities on climate science. We are only authorities on what we each believe and why we believe it.
I would particularly like to hear what it is you think that we “deniers” deny. And I’m sure many others would like to hear the answers from both sides.
Warmists claim that skeptics are holding up action on “climate change”. So if you really care about “climate change”, you have to dissuade us of our crazy notions. To do that you have to understand us or at least what it is we say. And to do that you have to talk to us. Failure to do that only reinforces our skepticism and even suspicion that, for some, polarizing society is an end in itself.
Before you come back with “get a life” or “I’ve got better things to do” arguments. I think you have demonstrated that clearly you don’t have better things to do. Or to put it less confrontationally, we both feel strongly enough about these issues to expend time writing about them.
We can agree venue, topics, format and ground rules for such a debate beforehand. Also, as I mentioned above, I have some articles about Michael Mann to finish first. So I propose a date some weeks distant.
What do you say Kelly, are you up for it?