Could Penn Stater’s Lawsuit Kill America’s Leading Conservative Magazine?

Michael Mann’s defamation suit might empty the coffers of National Review.

There is growing talk that a defamation lawsuit by Penn State scientist Michael Mann could kill of National Review, the magazine founded by William F. Buckley back in the 1950s one of the creators of the modern conservative movement.

How could this happen? Well, to recap: Back in 2012, National Review contributing writer Mark Steyn referred to Mann—a climate scientist—as the “Jerry Sandusky of climate change,” quoting another conservative writer in accusing Mann of manipulating data to prove the existence of climate change, and Penn State’s administration for covering up:

Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.


If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.

Mann sued National Review for defamation. He's won some early procedural skirmishes in the lawsuit so far. And that's led to this point:

And National Review’s interest could be fighting for its continued existence. As Damon Linker first noted in The Week, it’s unlikely the magazine could afford a payout, or even a protracted legal battle. Until recently, National Review Online was displaying an appeal for contributions to a legal defense fund for Mann’s lawsuit. As Steyn said, the defendants had already lost, by having to spend 15 months of time and money on the case. But he didn’t see the magazine’s demise as likely. “In a turbulent world, a lot of things could potentially doom National Review,” he said, “but this frivolous suit won’t be one of them.”

Linker elaborates:

Now, the lawsuit may well be dismissed down the road. But the longer it continues, the more likely it becomes that Mann will eventually prevail, either by forcing an expensive settlement or by prevailing in court and winning a substantial penalty from the defendants.

It's doubtful that National Review could survive either outcome. Small magazines often lose money and only rarely manage to break even. They certainly don't have substantial legal budgets, let alone cash to cover an expensive payout. Indeed, in 2005, Buckley said the magazine had lost $25 million over 50 years.

Be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to ban impersonators and remove comments that contain personal attacks, threats, or profanity, or are flat-out offensive. By posting here, you are permitting Philadelphia magazine and Metro Corp. to edit and republish your comment in all media.

  • Rajendra Pachauri

    This is clearly a nuisance lawsuit Mann is conducting, but it’s a bluff. Mann will try to drag this out and impose legal costs on NR, but he will never concede to exposing his data and research methods to public scrutiny.

    If the case ever gets to the heart of the matter and a judge subjects Mann’s data and methods to discovery, he will bail.

    Which brings us to a larger question: with Penn State retrenching their ethics, why wouldn’t they encourage transparency of the data and methods of their falsely self-proclaimed Nobel Peace Prize winner?

    Why let him continue to hide the decline?

    • Immorta1600

      Mann’s data and methods are published research. Discovery isn’t going to bring data or methods out.

      Obviously your use of “hide the decline” shows you are ignorant of the post 1960 tree ring divergence issue.

  • Grrretch

    Just out of curiosity does anyone know who is funding Michael Mann’s legal bills? They must be in the 6 if not 7 figures by now.

    • Immorta1600

      Could be the lawyer is working like an ambulance chaser. …gets a cut of the settlement

  • http://europa-antiqua-arca.blogspot.com/ clavdivs

    Linker is a left-wing activist and author of a book entitled “The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege.” So he’s obviously not a disinterested observer.

    To answer the question, no, it couldn’t, because NR like almost all large publications has libel insurance.

    • Steve in Philly

      They actually don’t. That’s why they have an appeal to readers on their site. If they did, the insurance would be finding their defense.

      • http://europa-antiqua-arca.blogspot.com/ clavdivs

        I believe the legal costs (i.e. the lawyer fees) they have to pay for, but any damages paid to Mann for the actual libel, they do have insurance for.

  • Lu Belle

    “It’s doubtful that National Review could survive either outcome.”

    This is a malicious lie by Linker.
    National Review should sue.

    • weffie

      It’s a lie that it’s a malicious lie. Linker should sue.

  • Dougal

    The suit is a farce. There is always “growing talk” about every nonsensical thing. Steyn, if necessary, will be able to raise all the money he wants. And not just from climate skeptics, but also from free speech defenders.

    The suit is nothing more than an attempt to squelch dissent on the subject of climate change. It’s is a perverse violation of the ideals of science and the scientific method. The idea that “the science is settled” is a perverse violation of the ideals of science and the scientific method.

    What Mann represents isn’t science. It is authoritarianism.

    • Guest

      Don’t worry, Mann’s work has been confirmed by dozens of subsequent reconstructions. The science is sound.