According to national columnists Lyons: Climate change deniers resort to character attacks Lets cut to the chase, Lyons writes:
. . . Steyn’s post explained, quoting Rand Simberg, Mann “has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.” Does it need to be added that the National Review provided no evidence of same? Mann asked for a retraction and apology. Receiving none, he sued.
The director of Penn State’s climatology program — hence the Sandusky reference — Mann drew the ire of climate change deniers as the inventor of the “hockey stick graph.” First published in Nature, it combined so-called “proxy records” — tree ring studies, ice core and corals — of temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past 1,000 years with contemporary thermometer records. It showed the climate trending irregularly cooler until the Industrial Revolution, when temperatures trended sharply upward — the blade of the metaphorical hockey stick. Since then, numerous studies based on different data have drawn the same conclusion: Earth’s climate is warming rapidly, with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Mann’s misfortune, however, was getting caught up in the largely phony “Climategate” controversy. Admiring emails referencing “Mike’s trick” of sophisticated statistical analysis were made to appear sinister. Eight investigations by everybody from Penn State’s science faculty to the British parliament have vindicated Mann’s work in every respect. [This is boldest of all the lies in the Lyons article. See the truth here, here, here and here.]
However, Mann’s not a shy fellow. His book “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” constitutes not only a lucid explanation of his own work, but a vigorous defense of climate science against industry-funded denialists. In a recent pleading filed in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the National Review argues that this makes him a public figure and fair game for abuse.
Here is what is happening in the real world: ACLU, news organizations back National Review, think tank in climate libel case.
A who’s who of news organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, have sided with the conservative National Review and the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute in a libel lawsuit brought against them by climate scientist Michael Mann.
Mann contends that the magazine and the think tank both libeled him by publishing articles alleging that he has intentionally manipulated climate data. Both defendants are seeking to have the case dismissed under a statute that prevents nuisance lawsuits intended to silence critics.
The matter is currently before the D.C. Superior Court. In an amicus brief filed Monday, the ACLU and news organizations urged the court to reverse a lower court ruling that the statute didn’t apply in this case. They argued that it would be a blow to freedom of the press should Mann prevail. . . .
The ACLU was joined in the brief by the Washington Post, Fox News, NBC Universal, USA Today publisher Gannett Co., Bloomberg, Time, the Tribune Publishing Co., the Seattle Times and various professional organizations including the American Society of News Editors, the National Press Club, and the Society of Professional Journalists, among others.
Mann certainly acts like a man with something to hide, in one forum after another. I am more disappointed in The Union who would publish such smelly cow pies of misinformation.