Rich notes below Richard Muller’s New York Times piece on how the world “mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously.” The boss is too discreet to mention that NR’s lawyers are in court this very morn over the discovery aspects of hockey-stick inventor Michael Mann’s defamation suit against me and this magazine. For what it’s worth, my position is the same as Professor Muller’s: The hockey stick is fraudulent in the sense that what it purports to demonstrate is not so.
Meanwhile, my old comrade Donna LaFramboise notes Mann’s suit against NR in her new book, excerpted in the National Post of Canada:
Last October, U.S. meteorologist Michael Mann — who served as a lead author for one chapter of the IPCC’s 2001 report — filed a defamation lawsuit against journalist Mark Steyn and others. The second paragraph of his 37-page legal document says that “Dr Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” as a result of their climate research…
When a journalist attempted to confirm that Mann was a Peace Prize recipient, a Nobel official said he was not. Presumably, someone then suggested it would be a good idea for the IPCC to clarify this matter.
Two weeks after Mann filed his legal papers, the IPCC issued a statement contradicting Pachauri’s 2007 proclamation. It says the prize was awarded to the IPCC as a whole “and not to any individual associated with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner…”
Five years after the fact, the IPCC finally acknowledged that its chairman and others have been wearing medals made of tinfoil on their chests.
. . . thanks to this magazine defending itself against the fantasy Nobelist. It is an interesting legal question whether a man who fraudently claims to be a Nobel laureate in a legal filing can, in any sense, be defamed. Certainly it would be a great shame, just as the “settled science” is fessing up to being somewhat less settled, were NR to fall victim to Dr. Mann’s insistence that his work can never be questioned. It’s an important free-speech issue, which I’ll be speaking about (among other issues) at the Ashbrook Center in Ohio on October 10.