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.
Right, because surely THIS time we’ll see something come out that the last twelve investigations missed!
Because you’re so sure the ‘truth’ is out there, amongst the idealogues and science-bashers?
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.
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
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.
They “simply reposted the remark”, and then said “while we wouldn’t go so far as to call Mann a child-rapist, the author does have a point.”
Sorry, but that’s no defense.
Legally, the fact that someone else said it first is no defense. Your responsibility as publisher is to not publish defamatory material.
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.
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.
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.