Mike Mann Calls Out Slime-Vending “conservatives” at National Review

July 22, 2012

In response to the latest in vile and disgusting attacks on climate science and scientists, Paleo-Climate expert Mike Mann today served the once-long-ago-useful-now-ridiculous National Review with the letter demanding a retraction and apology.  The letter can be viewed below, or on Mike’s Facebook page, where you may choose to spread it around.

Part of the offensive piece, which compares Dr. Mann to sexual predator Jerry Sandusky,  is reproduced here.

This recent slime fest marks the latest in the long decline of what once was the brave attempt to build a respectable intellectual underpinning for modern conservatism. William F. Buckley, I’m quite sure, would puke.

The letter crafted by Dr. Mann’s attorney promises to “pursue all appropriate legal remedies”.

Get popcorn.

For anyone still not clear on the multiple exonerations of Dr. Mann and his colleagues of anything remotely resembling wrong doing in the trumped up nothing-burger called “climate gate”, video review is below.

 The first video unwinds the shameful distortion of out of context email texts.

Here an interview with Mann, and review of the disastrous, error and plagiarism ridden”Wegman report”, that is still cited by internet ignoramuses as some kind of authoritative  tome on climate science.

Finally, Mike’s own defense of his work, under oath, before congress.

64 Responses to “Mike Mann Calls Out Slime-Vending “conservatives” at National Review”


  1. […] If this goes forward, discovery will be very interesting, and very entertaining. I suspect that Peter Sinclair will end up choking on his popcorn. […]


  2. […] Da Climate Crocks chi si precipita a negare di aver condiviso the “wild allegations” uscite su National Review? function fanbutton(appidd,page,w,div,show_faces,stream,header) { $(document).ready(function() { if($('#fb-root').length!=0) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({appId: appidd, status: true, cookie: true,xfbml: true}); try{ $('.fb-like').html(''); $('.fb-fan').html(''); } catch(e){} }; (function() { var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = document.location.protocol + '//connect.facebook.net/it_IT/all.js'; document.getElementById('fb-root').appendChild(e); }()); } }); } jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery("#nav_home").removeClass("active"); fanbutton('124998494210426'); }); Condividi:  […]


  3. I hope Mann does it. Beyond the issues of Sullivan v New York Times, I rather look forward to discovery, which will make FOIA look like a 3rd grade spelling quiz.

  4. johnmashey Says:

    CEI:
    People might recall Heartland’s Bast – “Joe Camel is Innocent!” here a few months ago, i.e., noting that Heartland had long gotten tobacco funding and worked hard for it.

    Actually, if you look at Fake science, funny finances, free of tax, pp.38-40, you will find that CEI got 2X more money from Philip Morris than did Heartland from 1991-2001.

    In addition, the wonderful tobacco archives, given a search for “Competitive Enterprise Instiute gives us many hits, including CEI’s Fred Smith begging money from RJ Reynolds.

    ‘As you know,
    RJR’s continued support and your personal involvement has meant a lot in our battles over the
    last 16 years . But of course, the war is far from being over and CEI still needs your continued
    backing as we tackle the issues emerging in the new millenium. Our work, I believe, is
    important both for America generally – and RJ Reynolds specifically


  5. Thanks Jim for your thoughts. I find the accusation to be defamation, but in this case, National Review was simply reposting the original remark, with small amount of commentary. Ethically, it’s abominable, but I don’t know if a company should be held liable for it. On the other hand, National Review probably has a libel insurance policy, so why not sue them for it? Why not refuse to settle and demand a court date?

    It’s humorous that WUWT claims the Streisand effect applies in this case. The whole point of the lawsuit threat is to publicize the lies for what they are. More publicity would only help the climate change cause.


  6. Peter, Transterrestrial Musings is Rand Simberg. He has written about this blog post here: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43626

    Simberg’s response is that he’s surprised Mann is more upset about the charge of fraudulent science than the Sandusky reference and that he thinks Mann is bluffing. Also, that John O’Sullivan made a worse comparison here (the “I’m not as guilty as this other guy” defense):
    http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/

    John O’Sullivan is a consultant to Dr. Tim Ball, a member of numerous industry-backed libertarian think tanks. O’Sullivan is also a contributor to the National Review.

    • Alteredstory Says:

      This is a letter from Mann’s lawyer.

      There is a much stronger legal case with regards to the fraud claim than there is with regards to the Sandusky reference.

  7. skeptictmac57 Says:

    Well,I will say this:
    This issue has caused me to donate to the Climate Scientist Legal Defense Fund,and to Climate Crocks,so maybe the deniers have gone just one step too far lately.
    Thank you Peter,and Dr. Mann,and to all of those scientists who are doing the hard,and apparently hazardous work out there to further our understanding of climate science.


  8. […] Dr. Mann has an excellent book out about his modern-day walk through the trials of Galileo, and I highly recommend it. Oh, and Dr. Mann posted a note on his Facebook page that he has indeed hired a very good attorney and plans to sue the National Review for what they wrote. After reading the insulting article in the Nat. Review, I suspect he will win in a big way. (Update July 24- the letter written by Dr. Mann’s attorney demanding an apology and retraction is available here.) […]


  9. […] more on this I recommend reading the excellent Climate Crocks site, as well as the American Geophysical Union blog. [NOTE: Mann has also written about these […]


  10. […] Mike Mann Calls Out Slime-Vending “conservatives” at National Review Rate this:Share this:EmailPrintMoreFacebookTwitterStumbleUponDiggRedditLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Character Assassination, Insinuation by Ben. Bookmark the permalink. […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: