I agree with the author’s position but wish he’d been a bit more even handed in the examples he chose, which suggest to me an ideological bias.

Mann’s recent threat to sue Minnesotans for Global Warming, forcing them to withdraw a satirical video about Mann’s dodgy methods, hardly makes him a poster child for free speech

Here is a link to the satirical video:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/26/climate-scientist-heated-satire-threatens-lawsuit/

Thank you for that Rhian.

It illustrates again the need to be forever on guard against anything that limits free speech. You never know when it will be used against you.

Laws that limit free speech WILL be abused.

For anyone who believes Michael Mann has been treated unfairly, I recommend catching the 'Watts up with climate' Australian lecture tour where climate commentator Anthony Watts provides a jaw dropping explanation about the tree which gave Michael Mann the hockey stick. Venue details at www.climatesceptics.com.au. Failing that, google 'climategate' for a reality check (especially recommended for the author of this article) or read a good book like 'Hockey Stick Illusion'. Galileo must be turning in his grave.

Yep, that's right, scientists should not be muzzled.

However, more than a few of them should be hung, drawn, & quartered, for lying to the public, & falsifying results, in the hope of gaining advantage.

No don't muzzle them, let everyone hear their screams. It might warn the rest of them we will not be so easy to con, in future.

Ozideas, that sounds double-plus good.

Thanks for the link, stevenlmeyer

I didn’t actually intend to make Mann the issue. Though I happen to believe his work is shonky, the best place to resolve the question of the quality of his work is through academic scrutiny and peer review, not through the courts. Satire has it place, too, though!

Both sides in the climate change debate contain both victims and perpetrators of the attempt to silence or discredit opponent using inappropriate means, including legal action, trying to oust people from their jobs, etc.

An article that lists only opponents of GM and proponents of AGW as targets of malign litigation looks somewhat tendentious to me.