^No. But perhaps you could enlighten me.
First off: opening sentence is a run-on sentence, designed to confuse the reader, and the entire article is poorly written. My 10th grade journalism teacher would have red-lined this paragraph up one side and down the other.
2..
claims that the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) libeled him in a pair of articles in which they stated he had manipulated climate data and that the fraud had been covered up by his employer, which said its investigation concluded he had done nothing wrong.
This is a classic "he said, she said" ruse. The CEI "libeled" him
because they disagreed with his employer, who said in
their investigation, he had done nothing wrong.
Well, OF COURSE his employer said he did nothing wrong!!!!!!!!!! But there is no information about either "investigation" -- just the "he said, she said" comment.
3.
To make the point, the CEI writer, Rand Simberg, drew a comparison between Penn State's handling of abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky - the university's longtime assistant football coach convicted as a child molester - and its review of Mann's work.
This sort of thing drives me batty: comparing something to child molestation -- one of the worse crimes known to humanity.
The "mental harness" is
emotionally provocative -- but intellectually, does NOT hold water. ""Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,"
Really? manipulating data is lying; it is manipulative; and it is really crappy science.
But it is as evil as child molestation????????? Puh-lease.
Everyone quoted in this article is pushing their agendas as hard and as
emotionally intensely as possible -- and the reader is roped into going along, without realizing HOW s/he is being emotionally manipulated, even though the method is readily identified -- if a person knows for what they are looking.
