National Review gets grief, some of it justified, from around here. But in this they are on the side of the angels.
Mr. Mann is suing NR for publishing what was clearly marked as opinion. They did not make a traditionally libelous claim of fact, they merely stated that, in their opinion, they thought Mann was cooking the books. Mann and the “climate change” crowd want the right to shut up their opponents.
Even the Washington Post and the ACLU see the slippery slope.
The good news is that Mann has already lost a defamation suit in Canada. A big factor in that case was his refusal to release the data supporting his “scientific” findings. That pretty much made it a default judgement for the opposing party in the suit.
“National Review gets grief, some of it justified, from around here. But in this they are on the side of the angels.”
I disagree. My recollection was NR and Stein had a disagreement over how to defend themselves. Stein wanted to go after the underlying data and prove the falsehood. NR wanted the easier win based on free speech, If NR wins here it doesn’t disprove Mann’s analysis. Stein was right. NR wrong. In Canada, Mann was ordered to turn over the data and didn’t and lost. That ruling will get buried in the press if NR wins here. I hope the Supreme Court rules against NR and has to go after the facts of the case. Get the data and prove Mann is wrong. If NR wins now it will not be vindication. It will be a Pyrrhic victory.
Is this the Michael Mann who would not disclose his research notes on climate change while at the University of Virginia? UVA spent $500,000 plus protecting these notes. Maybe discovery in this litigation could free them?