Facebook Twitter Google+ Shout YouTube SoundCloud RSS

‘Climate Nut’ and ‘Dataphile’ Michael Mann Charges Ahead with Libel Suit

21st Century Wire says…

After being caught red-handed fudging global warming data for the UN Climate Research Unit – in order to hide the decline in average global temperature, dodgy ‘hockey stick’ climatist Michael Mann is hoping for a big payday from his libel lawsuit against the National Review and others.

IMAGE: Climatist Michael Mann and writer Mark Steyn.

Back in October, the libel case of Dr. Michael E. Mann vs. The National Review (NR) and The Competitive Enterprise Institute was filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. This week, DC Superior Court Frederick Weisberg threw out the motion by defendants National Review (et all) which means the case could be heading towards a jury trial. Some fear that the National Review may not survive if found guilty in this instance. Although under fire, NR columnist Mark Steyn remains defiant:

“Over the years, I’ve been sued and threatened with suits in various countries around the world but I’ve never before seen a plaintiff make such a transparently false assertion right up front in the biographical resumé.”

The whole affair stems from the embarrassing Climategate scandal of 2009, which was so devastating to the climate cult that many believe in was one of the contributing factors in the failure of the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen that same year. In addition, the scandal also threatened to Mann’s Penn State University government-grant gravy train.

Mann infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph (above) toted around ad nauseam by climatist high priest, Al Gore, as ‘proof’ of anthropogenic global warming – has since been shot down as a computer-modeled fiction – another kick in the teeth for the climate jihad.

The pièce de résistance of this latest fiasco was a scathing op-ed by conservative writer Rand Simberg, who referred to called Mann as kind of ‘dataphile’, “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

Mann must have had his own mass-CO2 ejection after  Simberg and Steyn placed him in the same frame as the disgraced pedophile Penn State University football coach Sandusky, a cringe worthy comparison if there ever was one.

Salon reports:

According to a report from the Week’s Damon Linker, National Review, the leading right-wing magazine founded by William F. Buckley, is in a world of trouble — and it has one of its most popular columnists, Mark Steyn, to thank.

Writes Linker:

Climate scientist Michael Mann is suing National Review and Mark Steyn, one of its leading writers, for defamation. It’s a charge that’s notoriously hard to prove, which is no doubt why the magazine initially refused to apologize for an item on its blog in which Steyn accused Mann of fraud. Steyn also quoted a line by another conservative writer (Rand Simberg) that called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.” (Simberg and the free market think tank for which he works, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, are also named in the suit.)

Thanks to whistleblowers inside the UN organisation, many people are now well aware that the UN’s IPCC may have duped the press and public into believing that ‘thousands of scientists’ had an iron-clad consensus on man-made global warming. 

Dr. Michael Mann is hoping to win back some of his honor by sticking it to the press, but his attack could actually backfire against him. One thing which could very well come out of this trial is that a court and jury will – for the first time ever, be able to see the gross manipulation and dare we say here (as many others already have), the fraud which underpins man-made global warming, or ‘climate change’ theory.

To date, neither Mann, his well-paid colleagues and Al Gore have still not been able to prove any of their wild claims, yet they’ve all done very well financially out of this new environmental scientology.

READ MORE CLIMATE CHANGE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Climate Files



We are a North American and European-based, grass-roots, independent blog offering geopolitical news and media analysis, working with an array of volunteer contributors who write and help to analyse news and opinion from around the world.


We're covering news you won't necessarily find in the mainstream, and things which regularly confuse career politicians, FOX and CNN watchers... #SundayWire
Neither #TRUMP , nor #HillaryClinton will be able to "fix" this system. It's much bigger than the puppets: https://t.co/ADXO5RiSLm - 11 hours ago

  • WillardGibbs

    National Review might go belly up because of Mann’s lawsuit–how cool is that?

    • Nonsense. Mann will lose, because a lawsuit includes a discovery phase in which Steyn and the magazine can subpoena every record related to the issue to prove Mann fudged the data. The magazine has a problem only if the jury consists of nitwits who care little about facts.

      • WillardGibbs

        Dream on!

        • allah_speaking

          Learn some math… The hockey stick is nonsense… and easily shown to be false…

          • WillardGibbs

            I have a Ph.D.in physics and I suspect that I have forgotten more mathematics than you’ll ever know. And just what is your degree in?

          • John Mackie

            prove it.

          • WillardGibbs

            Prove what?

          • John Mackie

            Prove you have a Ph.D.in physics and have forgotten more mathematics than he’ll ever know.

            I have a PhD in sniffing out BS.

          • WillardGibbs

            What a moronic statement,not uncharacteristic of your posts. But I certainly can beleve you are an expert on BS.

            OK, tell me what t would I have to do to prove it, and I will do it right after you prove to me that you are not a complete buffoon.

          • John Mackie

            A person with a PhD would know that he can prove it by sharing his thesis and, to answer the second part of your childish taunt, would also know that one cannot prove a negative.

            You fail on both counts.

          • WillardGibbs

            My thesis was on interdiffusion and elasticity of multilayered thin films. Do you even understand what that means? What is the title of your thesis, Champ?

          • EEB

            Yeah. It means you discovered Google Scholar.

          • WillardGibbs

            You know a good thing about you climate deniers?

            Yeah, I can’t think of one either.

          • EEB

            I suspect virtually all your attempts at thinking produce similar results.

          • Guest

            What a brilliant retort!

          • EEB

            Why do you regurgitate the same, jejune comments over and over and over again, throughout the internet? Let me guess…you just can’t think of anything else, right?

  • AnotherLover

    This is cool. I really, really, REALLY hope National Review sticks to it (and sticks Mann with their legal fees — isn’t that how these lawsuits work? [Of course, on a side note, that lying bag of scum Michael Mann is also, more than likely, filthy, filthy, rolling-around-on-carpets-of-money rich at this point in time. But still…]). Then Michael Mann can “set the record straight” — for the record! “I, Michael Mann, am indeed a fraud. But, seriously, you compare me to a pedophile? Waaaah! You made me cry. Pay me.” Hope you get what you deserve, Mike. And I hope the public finally gets to hear the truth writ large. Yay justice system!

  • Predrag J. Maranovic

    A jury and court might come to understand the true FRAUD of global warming and climate crazies. In hockey terms, this could end up being an ‘own goal’ for Mann – wouldn’t be an epic?!

  • Conrad Dunkerson

    Steyn and his co-defendants have been desperately trying to get the case dismissed AND passing motions to hold off on discovery until all their dismissal requests have been finalized. Meanwhile, Mann has been pushing to proceed to discovery immediately. That should tell climate ‘skeptics’ something… but somehow it just fails to penetrate.

    In court there are standards of evidence. The standard for scientific evidence in this jurisdiction is called the Daubert standard. It requires that any scientific evidence be shown to have gone through normal channels such as scientific peer review, be generally accepted in the relevant scientific community, be validated by subsequent research, and so forth.

    Mann’s hockey stick meets the requirements of the Daubert standard. NONE of the criticisms leveled at it come anywhere close. None of McIntyre’s work ever went through peer review (he published in journals that didn’t use it). Mann’s hockey stick has been confirmed by dozens of subsequent studies and is accepted as accurate by the vast majority of climate scientists. The ‘Climategate’ e-mails were investigated multiple times by some of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world… and found to contain no evidence of scientific wrong-doing. Et cetera.

    In short, none of the evidence you think ‘disproves’ the hockey stick is even ADMISSIBLE. Steyn and the other defendants have virtually no hope of winning… DESPITE the exceedingly high bar required to prove defamation of a public figure. They’re essentially helpless, because in court they can’t use any of the arguments they have been making in the press.

    • WillardGibbs

      It is impossible to reason with Steyn et al.on this as they know no science and are driven by ideology. After all the motions to dismiss are rejected it should be a blast seeing National Review driven to its financial knees by Mann and his lawyers. I can’t wait!

  • elderlyfox

    For all jurors to see.