I just want to convince my pastor, the principal of the parochial school, and other policy-makers, that there are two, three, may sides to this controversy, None of them has been indisputably canonized either by hard science nor by moral judgment.
Article at Principia-Scientific.org by John O'Sullivan [excerpts:]…Michael Mann has a heavy burden to shoulder in order to win. He (not Mark Steyn) has the burden of proving that the statements are false AND he has to prove that Mark Steyn, at the time Steyn made the statements, believed them to be false or entertained serious doubts about the truth of the statement.
Steyn (a Canadian resident in the U.S.) in his article, ‘Defaming for Beginners’ (March 17, 2014) then correctly adduces that the American legal system has been cynically played by Mann, lamenting, “the leisurely procedural torture of US "justice" would count as cruel and unusual punishment in most other systems…
Finally, the mainstream media has cottoned on to the wider and profound implications of Mann’s abuse of process. Not only has the Penn. State professor cynically been hiding his graph’s tortured r^2 regression numbers since 1998, but he’s now gotten his cronies at Columbia Journalism Review (March 17, 2014) to back his shameless ploy to subvert freedom of information laws (FOIA) and preserve the crumbling credibility of the “science” of man-made global warming.