By Andy May
The D.C. Superior Court dismissed Michael Mann’s lawsuit against the National Review today in a definitive way. The National Review was sued by Mann over a blog post that Mark Steyn posted in 2012 criticizing Mann’s work. Mark Steyn was not a National Review employee, and no one at the magazine had reviewed the post before he put it up.
Rich Lowry, the NR editor in chief, said: “It’s completely ridiculous that it took us more than eight years to get relief from the courts from this utterly meritless suit.”
Read more here.
Update:
Lots of discussion around the details of the lawsuit. Mann’s original complaint against the National Review and Mark Steyn can be downloaded here.
Mark Steyn updates us on the progress of the lawsuit here. One of the previous judges in the case had this to say:
The main idea of Defendant [Steyn]’s article is the inadequate and ineffective investigations conducted by Pennsylvania State University into their employees, including Jerry Sandusky and Plaintiff [Michael E Mann].
Indeed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mann is a spoiled little narcissist. I stay following him on Twitter just to see the BS he spills, and don’t call him on it, because he blocks anyone who speaks facts.
If you want to read one of his tweets, but he has blocked you, then right-click the link, and “open incognito,” or “open private,” or similar.
8+ years and millions of dollars…as Steyn says, the process is the punishment.
Michael Mann’s relationship with reality is not intimate. He’s a guy who thinks that the AMO and PDO cycles seen in a wide variety of climate-related patterns, such as temperatures, AMOC, ice, sea-level, and even fisheries, must not really exist, because garbage GCMs can’t reproduce them:
That sounds like a joke, doesn’t it?
Feynman must be spinning in his grave.