Thank you + Steyn v Mann
The book, plus all its typos, is available for download at your convenience:
Right now one of the most important battles for civilization you might not have heard about is taking place in a Washington DC courtroom (room 518), where global warming’s premier shyster, Michael Mann, is suing the writer Mark Steyn claiming that his “reputation” suffered “injury” through a column Steyn wrote in National Review. This is a case of alleged defamation over a decade in the making, with implications for both sides. If Steyn succeeds, and the claim is tossed, Mann will probably appeal - and do so with a media thrust featuring right-on girls from the subcontinent with coastal American accents (and white boyfriends). If Mann succeeds, the verdict will be used to quieten any criticism of Mann’s narrative (which isn’t actually what the case is about - but he’ll take it).
Steyn is not in a good way. I saw him in London at the end of 2022 and he was flustered and anxious. A week later he suffered a heart attack in France, then another. Then last year, whilst in the Adriatic, he suffered another one, and so is attending court in a wheelchair. Meanwhile, Mann is ginning up support for himself by appealing to all the best people in America on X - you know, the BLM death squads, Antifa terrorists, the #votebluenomatterwho Trump-hating housewives whose husbands are on their 6th affair in 3 years, and all the troubled fans of Taylor Swift with their sunset heart-hands. He even got Bill Nye the Science Guy to rock up to the court to perform his best Marshall Applewhite impressions. Bizarre.
If Steyn wins, we’ll be “awarded” with something that we think we should already have; if it's the converse, we’ll almost certainly be punished with something we don’t want.
There are ways to follow. There’s Amy K Mitchell, who is summarizing the events of proceedings at the close of the day here. There’s the “Climate Change on Trial” podcast produced by the indefatigable Irish duo of Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, using actors to pronounce opening statements and cross-examinations available here (also on Apple). There’s Conservative Woman’s take on the events here and a thoughtful analysis by National Review, who regrettably excused themselves earlier, despite the issue exploding on their platform.
I’m grateful for several reasons. The first is for sunlight: rarely do we get quality exposure - even access - to the inner shysterism of supposed “high academia”. Not even months after that fraud and DEI Voodoo Priestess Claudine Gay was forced to resign and we’ve got another entitled clown to scrutinize. Good. The second is for history: a friend of mine helped expose the Climategate scandal and whilst this is not what the case is about, it will be impossible not to recall Mann’s behavior then, which the BBC - useful jerks as ever - spent a substantial sum of license fee funding to vindicate. This too will surface. And the third is accountability. Mann will not be able to hide his farcical, mendacious, mini-Stalingrad strategy; irrespective of the result, the process being the punishment will emerge as one of the strongest themes of this trial - the opposite of justice.
I do envy people late to the game because if critical analysis is applied to Mann’s character, you get a handsome summary of our problems in one individual without having to slime you through evil and corrupt history. Intolerance? Mann is one of the most frequent blockers of criticism ever to have owned an X account (I’m blocked). Deception and duplicity? See above (process = punishment) and also, the case of the Canadian scientist Tim Ball - see here. Sneering, aloof and sanctimonious? In the absence of any substantial response, Mann has accused - and will continue accusing - his critics of being part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy”, or “disinformation network”.
*