Cheap Seats 2024 By Rich Trzupek

Remembering the First Amendment: RIP - 02/14

By Rich Trzupek
  It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied. Last week America turned a dangerous corner, delaying due process for 12 years before our “progressive” judicial system allowed a group of befuddled and misled jurists to deliver an outrageous verdict that undermines freedom of speech, the critical importance of debate as part of the scientific method and plain old common courtesy.
  Pennsylvania University professor Michael Mann, one of the leading acolytes of climate change alarmism, won his case in which he alleged that political commentator Mark Steyn had defamed him, apparently because Steyn was much too clever when making fun of the Prof.
  Here’s my perspective, which I cautiously offer knowing that some of the outlets to which I occasionally contribute will not accept any commentary that includes criticism of Professor Mann. It seems his willingness to sue dissenters and his access to financial resources that enable him to do so frightens many who might disagree with his views.
  I’m a chemist who has spent more than 30 years practicing in the field of atmospheric chemistry, as it relates to actual air pollution and actual air pollutants in ambient air. From that perspective I do not believe I understand as much about climatology as Professor Mann or Professor Judith Curry or Professor Roy Spencer. I am certain that I personally understand more about climatology than Al Gore, Bill Nye, or Chuck Schumer. I am also certain that I personally understand more about climatology than Mark Steyn. What sets Steyn apart from the proceeding trio, in my mind, is that he would not be offended by that characterization. Putting my money in the apropos spot, I became a founding financial member of the Mark Steyn Club shortly after its launch, when Professor Mann launched his legal assault on Steyn so many moons ago.
  The basis of Mans’s 12-year-old lawsuit, at least from my perspective, was basically that Steyn had made fun of Mann and, being a brilliant, sharp tongue humorist, Steyn had done so exceedingly well. Mann, who has apparently had any vestige of a sense of humor surgically removed from his person years ago, reacted with judicial fury. His legal team insisted that Steyn had defamed Mann and through legal machinations I do not pretend to understand managed to get the case tried in the ultra blue District of Columbia court system after 12 years of expensive and obstructive delays.
  Steyns’ supposedly offending thoughts were first published in National Review. Unfortunately this was the National Review that postdated its founder, William F Buckley. Under Rich Lowry the National Review stopped being the journal that cried “Stop!” at history and became the Never-Trump mouthpiece for those who wondered if we couldn’t share tea and crumpets across the aisle. NR bailed out of the Mann lawsuit as quickly as their legal team could speedily facilitate. (If Messr. Lowry wonders or cares why me, my brothers and people like us cancelled our subscriptions, you need read no further. Color us NeveR.)
  Political discourse in America has a rich tradition that includes wildly discordant opinions and amusingly unique expressions of those opinions. Consider HL Menken, Dorothy Parker, Mike Royko, and the dozens, nay hundreds, of pundits who have expressed their opinions both poignantly and humorously. I don’t agree with everything that has been said by those folks. I thank God that I live in a country where those expressions, those senses of humor and that outreach to our better selves can occur.
  Steyn inherited that birthright. It’s a birthright of dissenting commentary that traces its origins back to Thomas Payne, Samuel Adams, James Otis and Alexander Hamilton. Our nation was born, quite literally, on the principle that one has the right and the obligation to insult the king.
  Beyond the issue of healthy disagreement in the public forum, among public figures, there is this: To what extent is Professor Mann an expert? Is he an expert climatologist? I’ll grant him that. Judith Curry and Roy Spencer, among many others, are also expert climatologists. The adjective “expert” does not make any of them infallible. It does provide more weight when any of them express their opinion about the potential influence of greenhouse gases in terms of climate change. But that expertise does not cancel out my or anyone else’s informed opinion.
  More importantly Professor Mann’s ability to the value effects on our climate does not mean he is an expert in determining the best ways to mitigate the consequences. He is not an expert with regard to power generation and the effects that changing power generation would have on nations as a whole, or the various segments of those generations.
  Professor Mann is not an expert in electrical grid reliability. He is not an expert in the difference between base load power and peak demand. He is not an expert in terms of defining the societal and economic costs, especially among the lowest income fractions of our society, that would result from moving from a largely fossil fueled power generation model to a renewable power generation dream.
  Mann is an academic, bloated with righteous self-importance. Like too many academics today, he wanders through life wearing blinders, unable or unwilling to tolerate other points of view. His persecution of Mark Steyn has been reprehensible. A decent person would be deeply ashamed, but it’s hard to believe the word “decency” appears in Professor Mann’s personal lexicon.
  Email: richtrzupek@gmail.com