Here’s a good rundown over at Science mag on the legal hurdles Professor Mann faces in winning his frivolous suit against us.

…on the Mann lawsuit.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here is CEI’s legal defense of my blog post, written three weeks ago, which I hadn’t previously seen.

Happy tenth bloggiversary. I just had my eleventh.

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.

Nope.

Mark Steyn comments.

I agree with Glenn about this experiment:

“But tampering with the environment is risky, they say, so any experiments must be carried out responsibly and transparently, with the involvement of the scientific community and proper governance.”

I’m inclined to agree, but I’d be more inclined if climate scientists had demonstrated more professional responsibility themselves.

No kidding.