Mann v. National Review et al.

1. “How to Manipulate Rubes into Covering Your Legal Bills,” Mark Steyn edition.

2. Free Speech 101 for Sulky Teenagers.

3. What Precedent? Why National Review et al. Are Running Scared.

4. The Free Speech Brigade Suppresses Free Speech.

5. Mark Steyn’s Flashdance.

6. Inspector Steyn is Looking for a Clue.

7. Take Notes, Mr. Steyn.



  1. […] Mann v. National Review et al. […]

  2. It’s curious that you would support Dr. Mann’s (and others) attempt to stifle debate and silence critics of what has become the Apocalyptic Global Climate Change theory. When every weather event, hot or cold, wet or dry, is used to support the theory, then we’re in the realm of fanaticism, not science.

    Steyn is a journalist/writer/satirist who exposed Prof. Mann, a certifiable public figure. One who has lied about winning the Nobel Prize, conspired with like-minded doomsayers to stifle open debate, and then filed a frivolous lawsuit he evidently has no intention of actively pursuing. (‘Frivolous’ because he has not been actually, provably damaged by Steyn’s little blog post. Arguably, it has increased his popularity among the AGCC faithful.)

    A side note on ‘Faith’. I’ve worked with and for Mormons and have found them to be among the most honest, hardworking and easygoing people, and open to discussing faith, but in no way evangelizing. But since we’re discussing science here, don’t you find it odd that there appears to be zero archeological evidence to support the peoples described in the BoM?

    • Hi Dan,

      1. If there exist global warming fanatics, it does not follow that everyone who is concerned about it is a fanatic.

      2. If you want to read my analysis of the Mann v. NRO et al. case, click here.

      3. Mann didn’t “lie” about being a Nobel laureate. He was legitimately misled, as were a lot of other IPCC scholars. Fred Singer apparently thought he was a Nobel laureate just because he was a reviewer. Mike Mann and the other lead authors actually got a certificate from the IPCC with a copy of the Nobel diploma. So the idea that he was “lying” is just ridiculous.

      4. I disagree about there being “no archeological evidence” to support the Book of Mormon, but this is WAY off topic. If you are actually interested in knowing what I think about that, e-mail me at

  3. […] Mann v. National Review et al. […]

  4. […] Mann v. National Review et al. […]

  5. […] Mann v. National Review et al. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: