[norwaypinesavage]

The article is heavily biased. Take, for instance, the statement: "Scientists hail Mann’s lawsuit as a necessary defense against efforts to erode public confidence in the scientific consensus that climate change is an urgent threat". For starters, "scientific consensus" is anathema to true scientists. There is no such thing as consensus in real science. In more than one instance over the centuries, science has been turned on its ear because a single scientist conducting a documented, repeatable experiment which proved the so-called "consensus" was wrong. There is no such thing as consensus in the true Scientific Method.

The article additionally completely ignored that Mann recently lost a similar case in Canada. Mann was not only declared wrong, he was ordered to pay the legal expenses of the winner. Either the author was too biased to include this, or he was so ignorant of the facts that he didn't even know it. Neither alternative suggests anything but fake news.

[Erik Latranyi]

The 97% Consensus was created by throwing out the majority of climate science that did not take a position in support or against man-made climate change.

Only 0.5% of papers written at the time supported NASA’s man-made climate position.

[PghBaldy]

“There is no such thing as consensus in real science. “ -— That does not seem true. The Earth revolves around the Sun surely is consensus.

[FLT-bird]

Exactly. I always point this out to Gaia Worshippers. Consensus ie opinions are not how science works. Data, experiments, predictions, hypotheses which are both falsifiable and repeatable are how the Scientific Method works. There is no room for mere opinions.