An interesting question posed by the NY Times. We’ll skip the part in how the threatened lawsuit by Michael Mann would somehow be like the Scopes evolution trial
Certainly, the idea of a courtroom review of the foundations of climate science —and of its professional standards and ethics —had immediate appeal when Dr. Mann announced his intention on his Facebook page.
But after months of legal wrangling to keep Virginia’s attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, from digging into his e-mails from his days at the University of Virginia, does Dr. Mann, now with Penn State, really want to open up his files to discovery motions from lawyers representing the National Review? What, then, was the point of beating back all those Freedom of Information Act requests?
What’s being referenced is Mann threatening to sue Rich Lowery and National Review for calling Mann’s hockey stick fraudulent. Lowry told Mann to “bring it on.”
Let’s face it, at the end of the day Mann will not sue. First of all, every time a globull warming suit has gone to court the Warmists have lost, in large part because they can’t prove their evidence. Mann will not want to go to court because he will be required to expose his raw data and methods, especially since they have been paid for primarily with taxpayer funds. He’d have to take the stand and be grilled. He does not want that in the least.
Climate Depot has an in depth look at the entire kefuffle.
