Peter C Glover: The Climate Change Racket: Finally a ‘Day in Court’?

It’s what we non-alarmists have long wanted: the climate change racket on trial in a court of law. In threatening National Review and its international columnist Mark Steyn with legal action over alleged “defamatory remarks” in his ‘Corner’ column, inventor of the famously debunked “hockey stick” climate graph, Dr Michael Mann, may have finally bitten off way more than he can legally chew.

The current ruckus started when columnist Steyn penned a short piece entitled Football and Hockey on July 25. In it Steyn referenced Rand Simberg’s ‘Unhappy Valley’s Other Scandal’ article (July 13) on the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s ‘Open Market’ blog site. Simberg’s posting was based on former FBI director Louis Freeh’s recently published report setting out the “appalling behaviour” of the Penn State authorities who were found to be complicit in covering up Jerry Sandusky’s serial rape activities. Simberg made the point that the same “rotten and corrupt culture” at Penn State had, two years earlier, conducted an investigation that ultimately “whitewashed” another of their high profile “rock star” staffers, Dr Michael Mann, who was also “bringing in millions in research funding”. In the wake of the Freeh findings, calling for a “fresh, truly independent enquiry”, Simberg states “now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since.”

Enter Mark Steyn, a columnist known for non-PC, bullish straight-talking. While Steyn declines to extend Simberg’s “metaphor all the way to the locker-room showers” he reminds us that “when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to ‘investigate’ Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann.” Steyn went on to assert that Michael Mann is “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus”. It is this sentence that subsequently attracted the threat of court action from Mann’s lawyer via a letter that NR’s Rich Lowry described as “laughably threatening”. The letter suggests Mann’s legal team means business unless theNational Review “issues a retraction of this article and apologizes to Dr Mann”.

They aren’t going to get either, however, as NR’s letter in response makes abundantly clear.

Energy Tribune

About these ads

2 responses to “Peter C Glover: The Climate Change Racket: Finally a ‘Day in Court’?

  1. I’m uncomfortable adjudicating scientific issues in a court of law, but if this goes forward, remember, it’s the warmists who asked for it.

  2. The scurrilous lawsuit by Michael Mann is not about “adjudicating scientific issues in court”. That would be an impossibility. Rather, his scurrilous lawsuit is about pride. And scientific matters would not be discussed in Court anyway, even if this non-event of a lawsuit went ahead, but rather Mann’s use of the scientific process to present fraudulent findings which has defined public policy and the wasteful billions, of taxpayer money, spent in pursuit of the lies manifested in the Hockey Stick.
    This is a lawsuit that cannot go ahead because there are too many vested interests. I am sure Mann is being hammered by these very interests to get out of this with a “small” public statement. To save all of their hides.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s