Investors.com:

Climate Fraud: In an attempt to defend his role in the greatest scam of modern times, Climate-gate’s poster child threatens to defend his tarnished reputation in court. First, hide the decline, then hide the deceit.

‘Get lost” was National Review editor Rich Lowry’s appropriate response to a threatened lawsuit by Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann.

NR printed a post by the great Mark Steyn, who graces these pages as well, calling Mann’s famous hockey-stick graph “fraudulent.” That it is indeed a fraud has been documented by many, including us.

Mann was at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal in 2009, when emails were unearthed from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. In one email sent to Mann and others, CRU director Philip Jones speaks of the “trick” of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:

http://news.investors.com/article/623331/201208231845/climate-gate-zealot-michael-mann-threatens-lawsuit.htm?ven=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+EditorialRss+%28Editorial+RSS%29

The National Review are sticking their ground. They seem to think that their case is pretty strong.

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/08/michael-manns-risky-path-ahead/

“Stick It Where the Global Warming Don’t Shine

by Mark Steyn • Aug 22, 2012 at 6:48 pm”

Actually, I’ll bet Michael Mann had never heard of me when he blew his gasket, and I’ll wager his high-priced counsel never bothered doing two minutes of Googling. If they had, they’d have known that once they start this thing they’d better be prepared to go the distance.

For my part, although I’ve been dismissive of Mann’s “hockey stick” for over a decade, I’d never paid much attention to him personally. All I’d say is he seems strangely insecure for a person of such eminence. I wonder what he’ll be like on the witness stand. And I’ll be interested to see whether his page links to our lawyer’s letter the way my page linked to his lawyer’s.

Hockey sticks akimbo, baby!

http://www.steynonline.com/5118/stick-it-where-the-global-warming-dont-shine

Yes but on average the ocean is about 3 C warmer than the adjacent atm so conductive heat flow is predominantly ocean => atm. Also radiative energy is a net loss to the ocean at the surface as is latent heat of evaporation. Ocean heating is by solar and to a much lessor extent geo energy.

“Are you saying that the existence of radiation frosts proves that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?”

No, just that it’s completely ineffectual as it’s unable to prevent radiation frosts in the absence of clouds and WV – the major and by far the most effective GHG.

My second response (below) lasted only a short time before being taken down without explanation so far. Shame – I tried very hard to keep it factual. You can be the judge.

I agree with you that the comparison of Mann with a child abuser was in bad taste. But I am disturbed by the hypocrisy of your assertion:

“This sort of behavior must stop, especially if these climate denialists wish to be taken seriously as real ‘skeptics’.”

Yes, ad hominem attacks should stop, but on both sides equally! Referring to sceptics by the vicious, dismissive term “denialists” means you’re refusing to take them seriously.

Your comments policy includes: “No ad hominem attacks… Comments using labels like ‘alarmist’ and ‘denier’ as derogatory terms [and when are they not?] are usually skating on thin ice.”

So this post itself breaks your site’s rules with clear hypocrisy. Nuccitelli’s concern for Mann’s treatment does not mitigate that.

Sceptical arguments are unaffected whether or not you take them seriously. In listening to the common sense in their questions we reveal our concern for truth. It’s hard to understand why we don’t hear clear answers, as most of the questions are simple.

For example: the ocean can apparently be heated by radiation from the atmosphere, so why can’t you heat the bath by blowing warm air at it? Why has global warming reduced this century, when the decadal growth rate in atmospheric CO2 from 2000-2009 was the greatest ever?

There is already every reason to take those sceptical questions seriously.