Climate pseudo-scientist Michael Mann is litigious, but his track record is poor. Nearly nine years ago, he sued National Review, Mark Steyn and the Competitive Enterprise Institute over a post that Mark did at The Corner, which read in part:
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
Mann sued for defamation. His case is obviously ill-founded, as Mark’s post was a statement of opinion on a subject of great public interest. It is a scandal that Mark Steyn and National Review have spent millions defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit for nearly a decade.
After years of procedural machinations, the D.C. court has finally dismissed Mann’s case against National Review, on the ground that any “actual malice” on the part of Mark Steyn, a non-employee, cannot be attributed to National Review. No kidding. That ruling should have been available eight years ago.
Mann’s frivolous, harassing lawsuit continues against Steyn and CEI. Those claims, too, should have been dismissed long ago. As Mark has often said, the process is the punishment. The only way this litigation can end with any semblance of justice is if the court assesses many millions of dollars in costs against the appalling Michael Mann.