Proponents of the Free Market aren't Profitable, Beg for Money

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335221/we-need-your-help-jack-fowler

As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don't have. Of course, we'll do whatever we have to do to find ourselves victorious in court and Professor Mann thoroughly defeated, as he so richly deserves to be. Meanwhile, we have to hire attorneys, which ain't cheap.

Wait, there's more.

Dr. Mann complains about two statements: 1)that as "the man behind the fraudulent climate-change 'hockey-stick' graph," he is "the very ringmaster of the three-ring circus" on climate change; and 2) that he "could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet." Neither of these statements is actionable. Moreover, if Dr. Mann decides to pursue this matter, he and his research would be subjected to a very extensive discovery of materials that he has fought so hard to protect in other proceedings. Such materials would be required for National Review to defend itself.

(and from the same document:)

Here, "even the most careless reader must have perceived" that Mr. Steyn's use of the term "fraudulent" did not accuse Dr. Mann of fraud in the criminal sense, but rather was used to call out his conclusions on climate science as intellectually suspect.

On one hand they say through discovery in a legal proceeding they will be proven factually correct, and on the other, uh, they didn't really mean it and stuff.

I'm not sure Dr. Mann's claims of "emotional distress" were very helpful to his lawsuit but I'm busting out the popcorn for this.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Hoo boy.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Boo hoo hoo! 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

  Priceless.

[inode_buddha]

Dr. Mann's "emotional distress" may be worth up to $3 million in NY state. (NY state sentencing guidelines) Other states may vary. The downside of an "emotional distres" argument is that its difficult to prove, being intangible. OTOH it is standard practice in torts to throw everything possible at the opposing party and see what sticks.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. How's that Ayn Rand working out for them, they built that magazine of theirs didn't they?