Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.
Latest posts by Jim Lakely (see all)
- PODCAST: Charlie Kirk and Brent Hamachek on Time for a Turning Point - February 14, 2017
- Yes, New York Times Commenter Maggie Mae, ‘The Heartland’ Matters - January 9, 2017
- The Year in Climate Realism: A Review of 2016 - January 6, 2017
Michael Mann was kind enough to alert me via Twitter about this blog post by Howard University chemistry professor Josh Halpern — a man who goes by the name Eli Rabett at his blog. Halpern dredges up an old email from Dr. S. Fred Singer as a pre-emptive strike to undermine Heartland’s upcoming Climate Change Reconsidered II — the definitive rebuttal to the poltiicized science of the UN IPCC’s next report, which is starting to leak out.
It won’t work. Here’s my response at the Silly Rabett blog:
Jim Lakely from The Heartland Institute here. Glad to see you’re all anxiously awaiting the release of Climate Change Reconsidered II. As devastating as Climate Change Reconsidered I and the 2011 Interm Report were, I’m told II is even better. But will your knives be long enough?
Dr. Singer’s email was “leaked” and widely discussed around the time it was written, some four years ago, so this is hardly a bold new discovery. All (or almost all) of the people Dr. Singer emailed had previously been sent some or all of the manuscript for review, so it was appropriate for him to send them this invitation to be identified in the final product. Nobody Dr. Singer contacted would have agreed to be listed without reading the portions of manuscript that fell into their area of scientific specialty, and none did.
By the way, the IPCC’s method of listing contributors and reviewers is far worse since NONE of the people they list read (much less approved) the final version of the manuscript bearing their names. As you well know, IPCC reports are political documents, not science. They are revised to fit political agendas after the scientists finish their work. The IPCC just sent out a news release once again acknowledging that this is the case with its latest report. This is just one of the many procedural problems that render IPCC reports so unreliable.
Michael Mann — who helpfully alerted Heartland to this blog post on Twitter — should be careful about promoting a commentary criticizing others over how one attracts co-authors and reviewers to scientific work. The Wegman report, commissioned by Congress, places Mann in a rather conspicuous glass house.