I wrote this last night, so it's not quite up to date:
Breaking from SteynOnline:
Breaking from SteynOnline:
Go read the post and come back. One thing that seems to have slipped Mann's notice is that the worst of the Corner post (in my opinion) was material quoted from another source, Rand Simberg. Mark didn't care to go there. And neither did Simberg's editor, who has since removed the Sandusky molestation comparison. The part in question now reads:Michael Mann, the professor who created the climate-change "hockey stick", announced over the weekend his intention to sue National Review over Mark's Corner post "Football and Hockey".You can see the letter from Professor Mann's lawyer here.
I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since.The next sentence, about Mann being "the Sandusky of climate science," etc., is gone, with this note at the end:
*Two inappropriate sentences that originally appeared in this post have been removed by the editor.Simberg doesn't seem worried about a lawsuit. In response to a reader comment:
I have no doubt you will be issuing a retraction and an apology very soon when you get a letter.Jay Currie is also quite entertained:
I seriously doubt I’ll get one, but I’ll be quite entertained if I do. As I told Politico, it’s just a bluff. The last thing that Mann wants to do is go under oath with a discovery process.
“You don’t tug on Superman’s cape.”Fun, maybe, for us spectators, but it couldn't be all that diverting for the parties involved, as it drains away their time, energy, and financial resources. Mark Steyn has much better things to do. Here's hoping Mann smartens up and drops the idea.
Joy, joy, happy happy! I’ve always thought Mann was a tone-deaf idiot but never in my wildest dreams did I think he’d be dumb enough to sue, or even threaten to sue, a guy as bright as Steyn.
And, on balance, I rather suspect that Mann has absolutely no clue just how clever Mark actually is. We Canadians have had a ring side seat to Mark destroying the whole edifice of “speech regulation” in Canada. He didn’t just win, he and a few other people are directly responsible for the repeal of Canada’s anti-free speech laws.
But the best part is that Mark is wickedly funny. As we have learned, the “climate concerned community” has no sense of humour at all. Long before this goes to Court (as if) Mark will have a jolly excuse to make fun of Mikey.
It will not be pretty. But, Dear Lord, it will be fun.
Sue Mikey, sue!
Update Tuesday morning: Rand Simberg replies to questions. Excerpt:
Interestingly, he seems much more upset about the accusations of scientific fraud than about the Sandusky comparison (the latter is almost an afterthought in the lawyer’s letter). But does he really want to litigate the hockey stick in a court of law? Does he in fact want to dig into any of his unscientific behavior in a venue in which he will be under oath, and he won’t have sympathetic colleagues covering for him? Does he really want those emails to be read aloud in court? And has he talked to the University of Virginia? Even if they continue to fight the FOIA, how will they fight a subpoena for the missing emails in a civil lawsuit?I can't believe Mann will go through with it.
On second thought, Mark's free speech lawsuit gave birth, in a way, to Marshmallow World. So part of me is cheering this on in hopes of another musical breakthrough. I'm thinking video this time, something along these lines.
Most recent posts here. Follow us on Twitter here. Amazon store here.