Christopher Horner is demonstrably wrong

On October 24, Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) wrote a guest post at Wattsupwiththat.com commenting on the recently announced defamation lawsuit by Michael Mann against the CEI, The National Review, and two of the organizations’ authors.

Among Horner’s many questionable claims was one that is undeniably wrong. Specifically, Horner incorrectly claims that an investigation conducted by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation was not independent of prior Pennsylvania State University investigations. The investigations were into whether or not Michael Mann was guilty of academic misconduct and both investigations found that he was innocent of the charges made by his many critics.

Horner specifically wrote the following at Wattsupwiththat:

The National Science Foundation purported to inquire, as well, but worked from what PSU provided it. So much for that.

This is demonstrably false, as anyone who has read the NSF Closeout Memorandum knows. While the OIG began their investigation with the information provided by Penn State, the OIG had the authority to probe beyond that information if they felt additional investigation was warranted. The OIG felt that, with respect to three of the four allegations against Mann, the Penn State investigation had been sufficiently thorough. However, the OIG felt that Penn State did not examine the first allegation – falsifying research data – in enough detail and so the OIG conducted its own independent investigation:

In particular, we were concerned that the University did not interview any of the experts critical of the Subject’s research to determine if they had any information that might support the allegation. Therefore, we initiated our own investigation under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. Pursuant to that regulation, we did not limit our review to an allegation of data falsification. Rather, we examined the evidence in relation to the definition of research misconduct under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation. (emphasis added)

Furthermore, while this independent investigation did review the information provided by Penn State, it went beyond that:

As a part of our investigation, we again fully reviewed all the reports and documentation the University provided to us, as well as a substantial amount of publicly available documentation concerning both the Subject’s research and parallel research conducted by his collaborators and other scientists in that particular field of research.

As part of our investigation, we attempted to determine if data fabrication or falsification may have occurred and interviewed the subject, critics, and disciplinary experts in coming to our conclusions. (emphasis added)

As a result of this independent investigation, the OIG found that “There is no specific evidence that the Subject falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct. (emphasis added)”

Steve McIntyre, one of Mann’s critics, admitted at Climate Audit that he had been interviewed by the OIG. Since the original Penn State inquiry and investigation did not interview McIntyre, McIntyre’s own comments provide independent confirmation that the OIG’s investigation went beyond the information provided to the OIG by Penn State.

S&R conducted a thorough investigation of Chris Horner’s public statements, reading through every Mann-related editorial written by and citation of Horner since the publication of the OIG closeout memo in August 2011. While S&R found examples of Horner making the same erroneous claim he made at Wattsupwiththat, we found no examples conclusive demonstrating that Horner had actually read the results of the OIG investigation.

If Horner has read the results, then he must be aware that his claim is false. If Horner hasn’t read the results, then he is spreading false rumors. Regardless of which option is the correct one, there is no doubt that Horner’s claim is wrong, and as a result he must correct his written record a soon as possible.

Latest stunt provides further evidence: "Donald Trump" is really Andy Kaufman pretending to support Mitt Romney

I broke the story back in June that “Donald Trump” is a hoax. In actuality, the real Donald Trump sold his identity, back in the 1980s, to none other than Andy Kaufman. Kaufman then staged his own death and assumed the Tony Clifton-esque Trump persona in pursuit of the greatest mass pranking since War of the Worlds.

Today, millions of people are considering Kaufman’s latest antics – the “October bombshell” that would alter the course of the election – and saying that not only has The Donald jumped the shark, he has perhaps wandered into full-blown insanity. Those conclusions would make sense if Trump were who he says and if he were doing what he claims to be doing. As the actions of a wealthy, intelligent businessman campaigning for Mit Romney, today’s non-events are at best a pathetic cry for help.

However, as performance art on the part of one of our culture’s true creative geniuses, it’s nothing short of brilliant. It’s not clear whether Kaufman is using the Trump character in direct support of the Obama campaign or whether the political element is merely a by-product. Is he making a political statement or using the elevated profile afforded by the election to draw greater attention to his own ultimately non-political project?

No way to know at this point, but I anticipate that one of these days Kaufman will unmask and this is one of many questions I know I’ll be eager to ask him.

For the time being, I say kick back and enjoy this show.

On Nov. 6, I'll vote for a liar for president

No matter how I try to rationalize it, I’m going to vote for a liar for president of the United States. And, no matter how I try to ignore history, I realize that I likely have always voted for a liar for virtually any political office.

I do not know anyone who has not told a lie. Size and intent of the lie does not matter; lies are lies. I know that lies come in a variety of shades, some of which have become socially acceptable. Honey, does this dress make my ass look fat? A man who answers no lies to protect the dignity of the woman. Oh, don’t worry about those few extra pounds. You still look hot to me. The woman who says that protects the frail ego of a man. When the pet rabbit dies, mom or dad tells little Bobby I’m sure Hoppy went to heaven.

We lie to protect the feelings of others. But we still lie, because we know absolute truth corrodes relationships.

But politicians lie to manipulatively establish and maintain relationships. Lies fertilize the ground on which campaigns are constructed. Candidates at all levels of politics lie, cheat, and deceive. Google “political lies” and explanations of why they lie abound.

Politicians lie for one seriously egregious reason. The lie: I’m running for office to bring real solutions to the American people. The truth: I want to achieve status and power. Then, if I can help the people — especially those who helped me buy my way to status and power — I’ll do so. A few decades ago, particularly odiferous political lies were usually caught by the press, reported by same, and produced revulsion in the electorate. Ask Richard Nixon.

But not so much now. We longer believe truth is possible in political campaigns. The sheer volume of corporate-supported advertising bearing lies, falsehoods, prevarications, deceptions, and context-free “facts” has inured the electorate. After all, candidates in many deceptive ads say, I approved this message. They have permitted lies in their names. So we expect lies. Lies become Truth-Lite™, what candidates believe we want to hear rather than what we need to hear.

The press has been complicit in fostering the staggering growth in political deceit: As media critics have noted, journalists have often focused on who’s lying more effectively rather than correcting the discursive record distorted by lies — the new post-truth journalism. Add the notion that the electoral audience is now firmly camped in an endless electronic chat room less reliant on “gatekeepers.”

The methods of lying have become the news and the fodder of pundits — not the lies themselves. That’s made lying by politicians easier. It has allowed politicians to lie with far more sophistication and not be corrected on the record. Consider the emergence of false equivalence — the tendency fostered by the political press that “objectivity” is a function of “balance,” that “both sides do it all the time.”

The invention of issues by pundits has created discourse that isn’t grounded in reality in the first place — so lies fill the void, and they’re effective if the pundits have ingratiated themselves with an audience eager to be lied to. It’s called motivating the political base. Lying to the already converted — those resistant to reason and cordoned off by ideological choice from rhetorical reality — is highly effective modern political practice.

The modern media universe of celebrity and “tell all” journalism has not made lying less profitable. No lie is too large to halt the deluge of money from donors. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been raised and given to politicians who lie. Therefore, politicians have permission to lie even more.

If lying has no significant political cost (although Sen. Gary Hart’s lie cost him his chance for the presidency), then lies beget more lies. Information becomes disinformation and misinformation. The public square has no shared factual commitments essential to honest discourse. Lying has eroded our ability to assess the moral compasses of our politicians. Are we now stuck with determining who lies less as the new standard for electability rather than who utters truth?

When it comes to our two presidential candidates, even the fact-checkers, it seems, cannot agree on which man lies most.

They both lie. So no matter which one I support, I will be supporting a liar.

Would someone please explain to me what we gain by having liars in the White House, Congress, and the statehouses of America?

h/t to my fellow Scrogues who allowed me to steal their ideas.