Michael Mann’s Non-Exoneration

An analysis by Chris Horner.

[Update early afternoon]

Some thoughts from Ken at Popehat on the plaintiff’s legal prospects:

Yesterday the other shoe dropped and Mann sued NRO, CEI, Steyn, and Simberg in D.C. Superior Court for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress (or, as I prefer to call it, Butthurt in the First Degree). The Legal Times has posted the complaint. I’ve reviewed it, and have some initial thoughts.

First, the complaint seems almost calculated to support likely conservative narratives about it. It’s very heavy on arguments by authority, citing the National Science Foundation and Columbia Journalism Review and Discovery Magazine and others for its propositions that the defendants are simply wrong in their criticisms of Mr. Mann. It fairly drips with righteous indignation over the existence of persistent global warming deniers. Global warming skeptics have been asserting that the scientific establishment is hostile to any dissent on global warming; this complaint isn’t going to dispel that impression.


6 thoughts on “Michael Mann’s Non-Exoneration”

  1. “It’s very heavy on arguments by authority . . It fairly drips with righteous indignation over the existence of persistent global warming deniers.”

    I understand that you’re saying these things in a dismissive, “this isn’t gonna cut it in court” sort of way, but check out the assigned judge.

    We’re not talking Scalia here.

    We’re not even talking Judge Judy on a menopausal day.

    We’re talking Maxine Waters without the intelligence and likeability.

  2. The main thing is the facts have to be in evidence. That judge is scary. It’s almost like electing a community organizer as president which couldn’t happen in America in a million years.

    1. Ken,

      That is the key mistake folks make about the legal system, believing that facts actually matter.

Comments are closed.