Readers may recall Dr. Mann’s emotional hullabaloo over an NRO published Mark Steyn editorial here. NRO responded to Dr. Mann’s legal threat today, and the headline is priceless.
NRO’s headline is succinct and to the point, I like it. Here’s the response from NRO editor Rich Lowry:
And this is where you come in. If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight and our investigation of Mann through discovery. If it gets that far, we may eventually even want to hire a dedicated reporter to comb through the materials and regularly post stories on Mann.
My advice to poor Michael is to go away and bother someone else. If he doesn’t have the good sense to do that, we look forward to teaching him a thing or two about the law and about how free debate works in a free country.
He’s going to go to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world. In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.
Heh, how well can Mike pound sand? Read the whole thing here.
UPDATE: The response from NRO’s attorney to Dr. Mann’s attorney is here (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I hope the price of popcorn is not too high. We’d all be needing to buy large quantities.
I see: “If Mann goes through with it, we’re probably going to call on you to help fund our legal fight”
And I think…
Mann could win or lose this battle and walk away with a fat wallet either way. I’d like to be stupid like that.
“Go on, punk. Make my day.”
It seems to me that somebody has used those words before.
Hit him in the fist with your face,Michael. That’ll show them how tough you are.
The legal response is quite a sledgehammer. But – they misquoted Steyn: He wrote “… tree-ring circus …” – about as beautiful a pun as ever seen; the lawyers wrote “… three-ring circus…”.
Everybody is at it
http://tomnelson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/fraudster-michael-mann-part-of-trend.html
I’d like to see Mann deposed by NRO lawyers in Yankee Stadium in front of 65,000 skeptics and a national TV audience.
“We call Dr. Steven McIntyre as an expert witness”
a General Anthony Clement “Nuts” McAuliffe response
Two points: 1) I like how when I click on comments on this blog, the link takes me to comments.
2) I had a thought, and now it”s gone,…. oh WAIT! Why isn’t there a constant refrain that Mann has not released his data? Has he?
We’re all in this together !
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/
I will do what I can to help National Review respond to any attempt to hide past deception and continued corruption of government science, as documented here since 1945:
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-818
Morph beat me to it:
“We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram.” ☺
True response to a UK legal challenge 🙂
http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported]
Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):
End of story 🙂
This could be fun!
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell’s first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.
Private Eye:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell’s attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.
[No further reply]
Smokey AND Morph beat me to it!
Great minds etc etc
Methinks you have the right of it temp. Failure to pursue his legal threat implies that Manniacal fears making a good faith attempt at defending himself from alleged defamation and slurs. Especially since he has chosen to sue others for similar statements. He’s got those globes (artificially enhanced through spurious statistics no doubt) stuck in a judicial wringer already and I doubt it will support his case there to back down in a different legal jurisdiction. Not that it will make any difference to the true believers, but I think the next public audience Manny addresses after dropping his legal threats against NRO are likely to laugh; loud and long.
Personally, I think the NRO should put a weekly status notice below any Steyn postings. Something like, Mann still lost, no lawsuit no legal sweat, this week. Stay tuned to this space for further news if the Mann lost in the climate wilderness situation changes.
The final court case referenced in the NRO response letter? Hustler vs. Falwell. Epic.
Wonderful! Bring it on Michael! Please!!
I stand corrected! And gladly so! Bravo. I thought the rag would fold and it did just the opposite.
Who’s paying Mann’s legal costs?
Anthony
“Here” link below broken
“Heh, how well can Mike pound sand? Read the whole thing .”
Error message suggests it may be at the requested site’s end.
National Review website has crashed.
Ty, part of the problem is that the science of AGW has never been in a US courtroom. It hit a British courtroom once over Al Gore’s movie, which was then clobbered mercilessly. The warmistas have generally been very careful never to let the science into a courtroom where it could be smacked around.
As far as the EPA ruling goes, I believe the only issue of the court was whether or not such regulations lay within the EPA’s jurisdiction. A procedural ruling primarily, the scientific basis was never on trial.
Now it will be. So perhaps the real question is which one of The Team cracks first and tries to get Mikey and his ego to withdraw? After all, a court of law is not someplace where you can flounce your way through the way they did with the Penn U and British government enquiries.
Gerard Harbison says:
August 22, 2012 at 12:08 pm
“We call Dr. Steven McIntyre as an expert witness”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Better still, all those warmist scientists who privately expressed their disbelief in Mann’s work and behaviour and got exposed in the ClimateGate emails. Can’t you just see the squirming on the witness stand when asked if they think his work is credible? They either have to diss him in court or suffer a grilling along the lines of “were you lying then, or are you lying now?”
Priceless. NRO’s response is heartening – it is always good to see a bully and buffoon stood up to.
Am I right? Mann already has two legal cases in process at the moment, both of which are stuck on his refusal to produce certain documents, and he’s now about to do it a third time. What was it Einstein said constituted madness?