19 thoughts on “The Mann Defamation Suit”

      1. He mentioned it. This guy is really an idiot.

        After being compared to Jerry Sandusky and having the credibility of his work questioned, Mann finally has had enough. He is suing Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blog and Mark Steyn at National Review Online for defamation.

  3. This article starts out bad and gets worse. It’s preposterous. Here’s just one reason why; he said, “In reality, there’s no real scientific debate on the overall facts.” He goes on to cite the 97% lie, although even if it were true, that leaves 3% in disagreement, thus disproving his own statement of there being no debate.

    My take on the defamation suit; Rand’s words (the ones in contention) were rude (Sorry, Rand, but I call ’em as I see ’em) BUT do not rise to the level of legal defamation. Mann himself, via his infamous “Hide the decline” and other statements, has bought the credibility of his work into valid disrepute. Mann is also a public figure by his own actions and intent, and as such he’s legally less shielded from defamation. Further, he clearly did manipulate data (that’s what his “Hide the decline” and “Mike’s climate trick” referred to) so Rand’s comments were legally in the clear even if not obviously opinion (I think it’s quite clear that they were opinion), and furthermore protected under the first amendment.

    Mann’s suit, on the other hand, is the true travesty here; he’s attempting to silence criticism and debate of a legitimate, important issue via lawfare. It’s also a direct attack on the first amendment.

    I don’t agree with the way Rand said what he did, but I absolutely and unequivocally defend his right to say it. Period. (and unlike Obama, when I say “period.”. I actually mean it).

    Mann has no more business suing Rand Simberg or Mark Styne under these circumstances than Rand would in suing me for calling his words (the ones in contention) rude. Rand would be fully justified in banning me from his blog (his personal property, thus, his rules) for saying that (though I hope he doesn’t) but not in suing me.

      1. I do hope this means that you won’t sue me? 🙂

        As a serous aside, it must be hard for both parties (attorney and client) when the client is a blogger (or anyone else who comments publicly on a frequent basis), and thus used to commenting on all sorts of things. It must be nightmarishly hard in such circumstances to heed council regarding keeping quiet on the meat of the issue, wise advice though it be.

        I hope this legal mess is resolved soon, and in your favor. Not just for your sake, but for the sake of open debate and the first amendment, too.

  4. Wonder what rock this dude crawled out from under? You think he’d do a little research before making himself look the fool. Yet he claims to be a lawyer?

  5. I note (and commented at his article) that even though he only quoted Forbes, the ACLU and seems like every major liberal publication in the country think he’s totally wrong. More liberals ought to be moved by that.

  7. These deniers, provided to us by Exxon and Shell, only want to poison our children, keep the poor poor, and destroy the environment because that is how they get their kicks. How dare they say these things about Dr Mann? Don’t they know he is a scientist and deserving of their respect and obedience? He has a Nobel prize, what do they have? Swastika’s hanging from their flag poles, I bet. I hope Mann wins, no one deserves to be insulted like he was.

    1. ” to poison our children, keep the poor poor, and destroy the environment”

      Well, yes. And continue to tax essentials, such as tap water, to add those poisons, such as fluoride, to not only our own environment but whatever eco-systems lie downstream of our sewage… We desire to obscure the sky with jet-trails, containing who-knows-what kinds of chemicals; so that a an ever larger sliver of the population may enjoy frivolous travel to distant locations. We want to fill every child’s veins with thimerosol. We want to use chloro-fluorocarbons to refrigerate beer and eggs; even though these products need no such cooling. We want to use enzymes in our wash water to launder oil-based synthetic fabrics known, to the state of California, to cause cancer in rats. We are the people who want formaldehyde in our pressed-wood and chip-board furniture and lumber. We want to make razors and pens and milk bottles disposable rather than re-fillable.

      WE are the ones who are anti-science.

      1. Well, you’d better just shrug your mortal coil right now, because your presence here is disturbing Gaia.

      2. I don’t know if you are being serious or not.

        I am not sure how holding those beliefs means that it is ok to denigrate people you disagree with the worst possible insults while at the same time not allowing people to disagree or return insults in kind. Free speech isn’t just for burning flags and masturbating in the children’s section of public libraries.

  8. Looks like I trolled up ‘guest’ aka Elifritz over there. He is suffering from extreme Thermosexual tendencies and extreme delusions of grandeur.

    1. There are only a handful of comments over there addressing free speech and none (that I read) that talked about the legal hurdles that Mann must meet. All of the arguing misses the point and Mann’s defenders didn’t seem to grasp the implications as they engaged in the very behavior they think is illegal when directed at Mann.

      1. “There are only a handful of comments over there addressing free speech.” Indeed. While I had a lot of fun over there flaming away, and probably M Puckett would agree, it is always a little amazing to see people who are so sure they know everything that they don’t even need to think about it.
        But free speech is the main issue. Everything I commented there got a response or several – except for that.

Comments are closed.