An update on the unfolding defamation suit climate pitting climate scientist Michael Mann against Mark Steyn and The National Review. The NR has offered its response to Mann's contentions here. It will fight, and not retract nor remove the post in question. Obviously, IANAL, and U.S. defamation laws make it a tough slog for Mr. Mann. However, I would note this passage from the document:
here) or straight out fraud. I am unaware of any place the term has been used merely to state that the scientist's work is incorrect. This is quite a bit different than the situation with "blackmail", where there is an established colloquial sense that is weaker than the more precise legal sense (the colloquial sense does not entail criminality where the more legal sense does).
But as I say take this for what you will. IANAL.
PS. I'm not sure why the usual suspects think Mann would fear the discovery phase. I think Steyn's emails would be far more revealing.