Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

More Thoughts On Mann’s Quixotic Lawsuits

7 Comments

…from James Delingpole:

Mann is going to face similar problems in his legal action against NRO. (Not to mention the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which he is also now threatening to sue). NRO’s defence lawyers are going to demand full disclosure of any number of hitherto private documents which Mann would probably have preferred to remain private. Furthermore, they are going to have the fish-in-a-barrel-style target of Mann’s Hockey Stick which has been so thoroughly rebutted so many times that there is no way on God’s earth Mann will be able to claim, straightfaced, that it retains the merest scintilla of scientific credibility. Ditto the various sham enquiries supposedly clearing the Climategate scientists of wrong-doing: an even half-way decent lawyer is going to make mincemeat of their verdicts.

So why, against all logic and reason, is Mann planning to go ahead with his defamation action?

My bet is that he won’t. But in the unlikely event that he does it will be because:

1. As I argue in Watermelons, the climate alarmist industry is so richly funded that it can easily afford to pursue cases like this.

2. Because this is what happens when you live in a bubble. And the “Climate Science” community is a bubble in much the same way that the Westminster and Washington DC villages are bubbles: these people spend so little time living in the real world that they lose the plot completely. In the weird, weird world of Michael Mann and his fellow climate “scientists”, Climategate was just a case of ordinary decent scientists doing their job, the IPCC remains the gold standard of international climate science, the Hockey Stick is not a standing joke and man-made global warming remains the greatest threat to the planet ever. The facts speak otherwise. But when you’re working in a business as awash with cash as the Climate Change industry, why would you ever let facts get in the way of a good story?

Why indeed? The irony, as always, is that it is the climate scientists, not the skeptics, who are well endowed, financially, and engaged in internal discussions of how to fight their perceived enemies.

7 thoughts on “More Thoughts On Mann’s Quixotic Lawsuits”

  2. Why do you assume that the corruption in question is driven by money, as opposed to say ego, power, arrogance, peer pressure, or sincere belief? Money is present, yes, but that is true of essentially all human activity, and it does not mean that money is the cause.

  4. Rand, I suppose linking to and quoting others who discuss the Mann lawsuit is technically not directly discussing the matter yourself as per CEI’s request – can you resist the comment section? I would much rather see the Mann lawsuit go forward along with the discovery process, rather than having things derailed beforehand. IANAL but be careful.

    1. Heh. Since there was so much discussion about baiting Mann, maybe liberals who actually take the threat of an actual damning discovery seriously should post provocative things here. After all, how hard could it be to bait Rand? 🙂

      (In all seriousness, I don’t think it matters. CEI is right to be cautious, but I bet whatever damning thing either side might say has already been said.)

  5. Mann has the same problem Akin does – too many years in the echo chamber, talking to people who agree with everything you say and do. Akin’s echo chamber was the pro-life movement. Mann’s is the taxpayer funded manmade climate change racket. Cheers –

Comments are closed.