In the comments at Pro Se, Eli read what Rob wrote
The issue is that Steyn et al published articles stating that Mann's work was fraudulent. That requires understanding the actual research.Well, not quite, the ACLU and those that joined with them said that it was Steyn's opinion and opinion has no requirement to conform to reality. Still and Eli wondered where he had heard that before. Oh yes
Steyn is trying to claim that free speech means he can say absolutely anything he likes. It's even been stated by the ACLU that Steyn's writing cannot possibly be construed as having any basis in reality. But you, yourself, are ample evidence that is incorrect. YOU have actually come to believe that Mann's work is fraudulent in spite of the fact that numerous investigations and subsequent research have shown otherwise.
That is the very heart of the libel case.
Bjorn Lomborg as the Wikipedia puts it
In January, 2003, the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) released a ruling that sent a mixed message, finding the book to be scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question. That February, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which had oversight over the DCSD. In December, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD, citing procedural errors, including lack of documentaion of errors in the book, and asked the DCSD to re-examine the case.They demurred, on the grounds that the outcome would be the same.