CUP Web site

RSS Feed

New Books

Author Interviews

Author Events

Keep track of new CUP book releases:

For media inquiries, please contact our
publicity department

CUP Authors Blogs and Sites

American Society of Magazine Editors

Roy Harris / Pulitzer's Gold

Natalie Berkowitz / Winealicious

Leonard Cassuto

Mike Chasar / Poetry and Popular Culture

Erica Chenoweth / "Rational Insurgent"

Juan Cole

Jenny Davidson / "Light Reading"

Faisal Devji

William Duggan

James Fleming / Atmosphere: Air, Weather, and Climate History Blog

David Harvey

Paul Harvey / "Religion in American History"

Bruce Hoffman

Alexander Huang

David K. Hurst / The New Ecology of Leadership

Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh

Geoffrey Kabat / "Hyping Health Risks"

Grzegorz W. Kolodko / "Truth, Errors, and Lies"

Jerelle Kraus

Julia Kristeva

Michael LaSala / Gay and Lesbian Well-Being (Psychology Today)

David Leibow / The College Shrink

Marc Lynch / "Abu Aardvark"

S. J. Marshall

Michael Mauboussin

Noelle McAfee

The Measure of America

Philip Napoli / Audience Evolution

Paul Offit

Frederick Douglass Opie / Food as a Lens

Jeffrey Perry

Mari Ruti / The Juicy Bits

Marian Ronan

Michael Sledge

Jacqueline Stevens / States without Nations

Ted Striphas / The Late Age of Print

Charles Strozier / 9/11 after Ten Years

Hervé This

Alan Wallace

James Igoe Walsh / Back Channels

Xiaoming Wang

Santiago Zabala

Press Blogs


University of Akron

University of Alberta

American Management Association

Baylor University

Beacon Broadside

University of California

Cambridge University Press

University of Chicago

Cork University

Duke University

University of Florida

Fordham University Press

Georgetown University

University of Georgia

Harvard University

Harvard Educational Publishing Group

University of Hawaii

Hyperbole Books

University of Illinois

Island Press

Indiana University

Johns Hopkins University

University of Kentucky

Louisiana State University

McGill-Queens University Press

Mercer University

University of Michigan

University of Minnesota

Minnesota Historical Society

University of Mississippi

University of Missouri


University of Nebraska

University Press of New England

University of North Carolina

University Press of North Georgia

NYU / From the Square

University of Oklahoma

Oregon State University

University of Ottawa

Oxford University

Penn State University

University of Pennsylvania

Princeton University

Stanford University

University of Sydney

University of Syracuse

Temple University

University of Texas

Texas A&M University

University of Toronto

University of Virginia

Wilfrid Laurier University

Yale University

February 5th, 2014 at 12:44 pm

Michael Mann Takes on the National Review and Climate Change Skeptics

Michael Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars

“A lot of us would much rather be spending our time doing science, but an increasingly large amount of our time is spent on defending ourselves against bad-faith attacks. Over time, I have come to embrace that.”—Michael Mann

In a development that could change the nature and tenor over the debate about climate change, Michael Mann’s suit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is moving forward.

The events leading up to the suit were recently covered in Kurt Eichenwald’s article in Newsweek. Michael Mann, author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, has long been accused of misrepresenting scientific data by climate change skeptics and denialists. These accusations reached a fevered and rather ugly pitch when Rand Simberg of the CEI equated Mann, who teaches at Penn State, with Jerry Sandusky. Simberg wrote, “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”

The CEI’s article was picked up by Mark Steyn, a writer for the National Review Online, who in addition to picking up on the child molester references, also said that Penn State failed to adequately investigate Mann’s scientific work. Citing libel, Mann has since sued both the National Review and the CEI, who initially wanted the cases thrown out, citing their first amendment rights.

Michael Mann, along with other scientists, has long contended that climate change denialists and skeptics have misrepresented scientific findings as well as e-mails exchanged among climate scientists. As he recently argued in the New York Times , Michael Mann believes it is time that scientists become more active in fighting back the efforts of climate skeptics.

Eichenwald concludes his article by writing:

Mann says he is frustrated about the bitterness of the years of disputes between climatologists and the skeptics but now accepts that responding to attacks will be part of the job for all of them.

“A lot of us would much rather be spending our time doing science, but an increasingly large amount of our time is spent on defending ourselves against bad-faith attacks,” he says. “Over time, I have come to embrace that.”


  1. Patrick Knapp says:

    Very disturbing and disappointing to see Columbia University Press giving tacit endorsement to someone attempting to use government force to silence his critics.

  2. JJ says:

    @Patrick Knapp Government force? I think you will find he is using the courts. Or do you think USA courts are controlled by the government?

  3. Patrick Knapp says:

    Yes, call me a conspiracy theorist, but I’m of the belief that the government controls the courts. Mann is arguing that the courts should direct law enforcement to either put Steyn in jail or collect money from him to give to Mann. We call this a lawsuit.

  4. Michael McCoy says:

    I believe when someone accuses you of falsifying data and calls you the Jerry Sandusky of climate science that you should be required to prove the truth behind your statement otherwise you are libel. In the United States libel is an offence that can cost you money or jail time. That has been decided by the people, who control the courts and the government.

  5. Craig Thomas says:

    Patrick, the simple answer to that is that if Mark Steyn didn’t tell a lie, he won’t lose the court case.

    Perfectly simple.

    If, on the other hand, “criticising” Michael Mann’s work cannot be done without telling lies, then that tells us exactly how reliable thse criticisms are.

  6. Noel Darlow says:

    Anyone is entitled to pursue litigation if their normal rights are infringed. That is not “government force”.

    Mann does not appear to be attempting to stop reasonable criticism. Science is a form of free speech and anyone is free to criticise Mann’s work – although only if they have better science.

    Steyn’s wild accusations of fraud does not amount to reasonable scientific criticism. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

    Climate scientists deserve to be given due respect for their hard work and expertise and they deserve to be heard. With his unreasonable attacks on Mann, Steyn is the one attacking the principle of freedom of speech.

  7. Patrick Knapp says:

    We can all agree on one area where Mann is a fraud: he has repeatedly claimed he won the Nobel Peace prize. This has been directly refuted by the Nobel Committee.

    We also know that the hockey stick has been proven to not hold without splicing proxy data and/or using proxy data declared off-limits by the NAS.

    But most importantly, the above comments suggest that it is ok to punish private citizens for lying about public officials. Fortunately, the threshold a public official (like Mann) must meet for unleashing the government on his critics is higher than some might wish: Mann must prove malice.

    It’s unfortunate that the passions aroused for silencing Steyn were absent when it came to ensuring Mann was thoroughly investigated (he was interviewed for 2 hours) when the allegations of research misconduct arose.

Post a comment