A Win for the Climate Scientist Who Skeptics Compared to Jerry Sandusky

[G_j]

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/michael-mann-climategate-court-victory

As the judge green-lights his libel suit, the defendants' lawyers jump ship.
—By Mariah Blake | Fri Jan. 24,

In 2012—after writers for National Review and a prominent conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky—climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.

Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.

..more..

[riqster]

1. Off to the greatest page.

An important article.

[jsr]

2. Recommend

[jimlup]

3. Good for Michael Mann!

About time we had some push back on this jerks who defame important voices like Dr. Mann's.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Good - publications like National Review, and people like Steyn, who take themselves seriously

should not be allowed to get away with calling scientific work that has been upheld again and again 'fraudulent'. It's an accusation that would hurt Mann's career if anyone paid attention to it. NR cannot say "we're serious" one moment and "assume anything we write is a joke" the next. They want to have it both ways, and that's how the right wing gets away with misrepresenting stuff - if you don't fight it, you'll find RWers quoting "fraudulent", and claiming that since no-one sued, it was true.

[Dirty Socialist]

5. Right Wing Media Outlets should Be Sued More Often n/t

[yankeepants]

6. You had me at "conservative think tank". . . oxymoron. n/t

[Adrahil]

7. This is SO important.

The right has made a hobby of attempting to discredit legitimate science through lies and in the case of climate scientists like Mann, outright defamation, that we MUST act against them. The right depends on the public never reading more than the first paragraph or so of any article. I know people who are otherwise intelligent and discriminating that actually believe "climategate" proved that global warming was fraud. When I point out that it did nothing of the kind and show them the evidence, they are shocked. WE MUST fight this tooth and nail.

[G_j]

9. completely agree

they have a method, they knowingly lie, because it works.

[Adrahil]

11. Yup, it's so infuriating! NT

[Spitfire of ATJ]

8. Watch them claim the FOX "News" defense.

[Adrahil]

10. Maybe they'll argue that they have a First Amendment right to knowingly lie. <smirk> NT

[G_j]

12. that ass is trying to claim

it was just an "opinion"

[Bandit]

17. Lying is one thing but defamation is another entirely.

I don't believe there is any law against Lying. I know there is a law against defamation and slander... I hope he prevails and gets a huge award, maybe in the millions.

[mdbl]

19. The right-wing clods on the supreme clutz will make sure

the lying pigs will continue to spread their BS without accountability.

[Cha]

13. Assholes. Good for Michael Mann!

[magical thyme]

14. Good on him. Their lies need to be called out every time.

Accusing somebody of fraud is not just an opinion. It's a serious allegation, potentially damaging to his career and potentially damaging to the environment.

[magical thyme]

15. not only has his lawyer dumped him, even the Koch brothers have

Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.

The lawyers' withdrawal came shortly after Steyn—a prominent conservative pundit who regularly fills in as host of Rush Limbaugh's radio show—publicly attacked the former judge in the case, Natalia Combs Greene, accusing her of "stupidity" and "staggering" incompetence. ...

....Steyn, meanwhile, appears to be paying a price for his brazenness. He still has no legal representation. ("My check from the Koch brothers seems to have been lost in the mail or intercepted by the NSA," he wrote. "So for the moment I am representing myself.&quot And since his Christmas Eve diatribe, the conservative pundit—who had been writing near-daily posts for National Review Online—hasn't written a single item. Neither he nor the magazine's publisher, Jack Fowler, would say why. But Steyn hinted at the reasons in a post on his website: "As readers may have deduced from my absence at National Review Online and my termination of our joint representation, there have been a few differences between me and the rest of the team."

[NickB79]

16. Good, it's far past time to go on the offensive

For far too long, scientists have been ineffective against the climate denier juggernaut, having their good names smeared and their work questioned beyond belief while the planet continues to teeter on the edge of a climate catastrophe.

Time to start hitting back, hard.

[marions ghost]

18. K&R