Global Warming Scientist To Be Cross-examined Under Oath [2^nd Amendment Texan]

In the off chance you morons don’t regularly stalk the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in search of noteworthy cases, Professor Michael Mann of Penn State filed suit in 2012 against, among others, National Review and Mark Steyn for something Mark wrote and NR published on its website (full disclosure – I am an occasional contributor to several publications, including NRO’s Bench Memos). As NR’s capable lawyers have confirmed, there seems to be no case here.

But even if there was a case, who in their right mind would want Mark Steyn as a defendant? He beat the rap when hauled up in front of the Canadian Thought Police Human Rights Commission and that’s the guy they pick to bully into silence? It brings to mind the thousands of air traffic controllers who were fired for walking off the job in the middle of a labor dispute with President Reagan: Even though we have no legal case, lets try to intimidate the only president who has served as head of a labor union. He won’t know how to negotiate with a union and will buckle under the pressure! We can’t lose!

This suit has echoes of a similar controversy in Australia. Four scientists who had not been persuaded by Mr. Mann’s hockey stick asserted thus:

The scientific community is now so polarised on the controversial issue of dangerous global warming that proper due diligence on the matter can only be achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under the strictest rules of evidence.

I never dreamed we would be able to get Mr. Mann to actually take the stand. NR’s Rich Lowry nicely summarized this line of thinking:

Usually, you don’t welcome a nuisance lawsuit, because it’s a nuisance. It consumes time. It costs money. But this is a different matter in light of one word: discovery.

If Mann sues us, the materials we will need to mount a full defense will be extremely wide-ranging. So if he files a complaint, we will be doing more than fighting a nuisance lawsuit; we will be embarking on a journalistic project of great interest to us and our readers.

It appears from the complaint that Mr. Mann is demanding a jury trial. He might get it yet – after 18 months of procedural absurdity the judge refused to dismiss the case. For 1^st Amendment legal observers, this is the cue to get the popcorn because there is a smack down coming. In fact, charging people to have their photo taken outside the courthouse with Mr. Steyn could be part his fundraising to cover the crushing legal costs of defending the 1^st Amendment (Mr. Steyn is being represented by different counsel than the other parties involved). I don’t know if the DC Superior Court allows cameras, but I for one would pay to watch Mr. Mann being cross examined about global cooling or global warming or climate change or climate collapse or whatever it is being called this week.

If science has proven that global warming is real, that its man’s fault, and that man can fix it, why keep the proof a secret? In 2004, a scientist trying to recreate the data behind this hockey stick and other global warming claims met a brick wall by the keeper of the data. Climatic Research Unit’s Phil Jones famously responded to the request by asking “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

So it seems that the exercise of independently verifying a scientific discovery has turned into just taking the scientists’ word for it. Because Science. And also, Shut up.

Let the discovery begin.

The 2^nd Amendment Texan writes and speaks about energy security, among other things, and has experience in both the traditional and renewable energy fields. You can follow him on Twitter: @MichaelJames357

Posted from draft by Andy

posted by Guest Blogger at 10:03 AM

| Access Comments