Michael Mann, the Penn State professor who gave us the “hockey stick” graph that ostensibly proved the world was catastrophically warming, is now learning the meaning of the worm has turned regarding litigation and public opinion
Mann sued Dr. Tim Ball on March 24, 2011 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia alleging libel because Ball said “Mann belongs in the state pen and not Penn State.”
Canada, of course, does not have the First Amendment and libel suits by public figures are, presumably, easier to win up north.
John O’Sullivan, a political ally of Ball, published an article on Feb. 21 on Principia-Scientific.org that because Mann has refused to disclose his “hockey stick graph metadata” in he has all but lost the case. He further said that Ball is no longer being satirical about Mann belonging “in the state pen.”
“In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment,” O’Sullivan wrote.
Seventeen-months later (Oct. 22, 2012), Mann sued political commentator Mark Steyn, National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and scholar/commentator Rand Simberg for a comment made by Simberg on CEI site calling Mann the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data”.
Steyn at National Review linked to and commented on the column saying:
Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the
locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a
point. 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.