Ars Technica: Climate Scientist Gets Compared to Jerry Sandusky, Files Libel Suit
Back in July, another LGF poster posted a Page on how Mark Steyn, writing for National Review, again rang the Pavlovian bell in accusing Michael Mann of fraud in his climate change studies, while using quotes from a “free-market” Competitive Enterprise Institute blog comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky.
Now, the other shoe has dropped:
Outside of the opinion polls and scientific journals, the public discourse about climate change is generally very low quality. Scientific understanding and even basic facts often fall far behind name calling and conspiracy theories. But, even by the rather low standards of the genre, a piece published at the blog of a free-market think tank was shocking—it compared a Penn State climate scientist to a convicted child molester who used to work for the university’s athletics program. Those accusations were then echoed by the National Review.
The scientist in question, Michael Mann, demanded the piece be removed, and asked for a public apology. The National Review responded by threatening to use discovery to demand all of Mann’s documents (which were already the subject of court cases) and proving that he was, in fact, a fraud. Now, months after those threats were exchanged, Mann’s lawyers have actually filed the suit.