Gloves Off. Mike Mann to File Suit against National Review Sleaze

August 24, 2012

The set-up.
In a new sleazy low, the National Review website published a post comparing climate scientist Mike Mann to pedophile Jerry Sandusky.

Video above reviews the sad history of the climate denial machine’s ugly attacks on Mann and his now richly affirmed paleotemperature studies.

See here for my last summary of the current story.

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.

Today this post appeared on Mann’s Facebook page:

People have been asking for my reaction to the recent response by the National Review. Here is a statement from my lawyer John B. Williams of Cozen O’Connor:

The response of the National Review is telling with respect to the issues it did not address. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s research has been extensively reviewed by a number of independent parties, including the National Science Foundation, with never a suggestion of any fraud or research misconduct. It did not address, or even acknowledge, the fact that Dr. Mann’s conclusions have been replicated by no fewer than twelve independent studies. It did not deny the fact that it was aware that Dr. Mann has been repeatedly exonerated of any fraudulent conduct. It did not deny the fact that it knew its allegations of fraud were false. Rather, the National Review’s defense seems to be that it did not really mean what it said last month when it accused Dr. Mann of fraud. Beyond this, the response is little more than an invective filled personal attack on Dr. Mann. And further, this attack is coupled with the transparent threat that the National Review intends to undertake burdensome and abusive litigation tactics should Dr. Mann have the temerity to attempt to defend himself in court.

We intend to file a lawsuit.


The legal dismemberment of the Denial machine has begun. In a conversation thursday with a very senior scientist, I was updated on a number of actions slowly encircling the Denial industry.  Think,  –  Tobacco lawsuits on stereo steroids, with extra secret sauce.

Below, more video of Mike Mann’s defense, under oath, of the Hockey Stick paper:

21 Responses to “Gloves Off. Mike Mann to File Suit against National Review Sleaze”

  1. Wes Says:

    Be sure to get and study Joe Romm’s new book “Language Intelligence” if you want to understand why the Right wins the debate so often. Our problem is we think that facts matter. In changing someone’s world view, they don’t. Romm carefully demonstrates what successful politicians, authors and preachers have learned – framing beats facts hands down. He recommends we talk less like scientists and more like Shakespeare. Essential book!

  2. The geniuses over at WUWT are celebrating this too, claiming Mann ‘fell for the trap set by National Review’. They’re of course living in a fantasy world where there was some sort of fraud in Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ study, which they think will be revealed if this case goes to court.

    But back in the real world, good for Mann. It’s nice to see some climate scientists finally fighting back against the constant defamation coming from the media. If he wins it should get some headlines and hopefully wake some people up too.

    • mtl4u2 Says:

      What is needed is a monetary penalty so huge that it would put NRO in bankruptcy.

      Now THAT would force all the would-be untersturmführer of the denialism industrial complex to sit up, take notice and, at last, start to experience the RAW FEAR of retribution and karma.

  3. Zach Cochran Says:

    This is going to be hilarious. By the time this gets to court, Michael Mann will be as credible as Thomas Malthus. The dude made crap up because his data didn’t match his opinion. Penn State covered it up to avoid embarrassment, just like they did Sandusky. Case freaking closed.

    Besides, half the comments and nearly all the posts on this site count as libel/defamation by the standards you’re applying to National Review.

    Also, “very senior scientist”? Sounds made up. You guys are too much.

    • mtl4u2 Says:

      It is very dangerous to laugh before the play begins. It tends to make one giddy and euphoric, two feelings that interfere gravely with judgement and clarity of thought.

      Don’t believe for a second that National Review will escape unscathed here. Courts make a VERY clear distinction between free speech and deliberate libel; and equating a respected scientist (respected by his peers; he doesn’t need the respect of the rubes) with a most reviled pervert and convicted criminal does qualify as deliberate slander.

      Furthermore, in district courts, facts matter much more than political grandstanding and pseudofuckology. Do not confound them with the Supine Court for they THINK over there.

    • kanspaugh Says:

      Right you are, Zach. Real morons frequent this site. Probably the type to believe that the earth revolves around the sun (Doit!), that atomic fallout is dangerous, or that women who are raped can become pregnant. Pack of flatheads.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      Zach, this is not a Fox-centric site. Therefore, you’ll have to actually document
      “made crap up”, since there is, after 9 official inquiries, no evidence for that claim.
      Do you also believe that those WMDs are still out there somewhere?

  4. […] The set-up. In a new sleazy low, the National Review website published a post comparing climate scientist Mike Mann to pedophile Jerry Sandusky. Video above reviews the sad history of the climate d…  […]

  5. kanspaugh Says:

    Ironic that the NR should draw an analogy between Mike Mann and Jerry Sandusky. I also used the Penn State situation as an analogy in a recent letter to the editor on the global warming issue, but the point of comparison was different:


    My last letter here, wherein I exposed the teaching of anti-science in OSU-Lima climate courses, has provoked the ire of some faithful Buckeyes. Why be critical, in such a public way, of our state’s flagship institution of higher education? Shouldn’t such matters be dealt with internally and, moreover, quietly?

    Need I point out that the logic behind this objection is the same logic that led to the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky’s depredations at Penn State? Officials there put protecting the Penn State brand ahead of protecting children from a sexual predator. That’s why JoePa’s statue no longer stands outside Beaver Stadium.

    What happened at OSU-Lima was not as bad, of course, as what happened at Penn State. But how bad was it? Well, when I contacted the distinguished OSU climatologist Ellen Mosley-Thompson (who with her husband Lonnie Thompson heads the prestigious Byrd Polar Research Center on main campus) and made her aware of what was being taught about global warming at Lima, her response was one of shock that such “errant nonsense” was being taught in an OSU classroom. Other of the world’s leading climatologists, including Professor Michael Mann, have echoed Dr. Mosley-Thompson’s surprise and disgust.

    Perhaps it would be an idea to email OSU President Gordon Gee and ask him whether he agrees with Dr. Mosley-Thompson that teaching young people global warming denialism as science is outrageous or if he agrees with OSU-Lima administrators, who think it no big deal. His email is

Leave a Reply to Zach Cochran Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: