Science
Related: About this forumClimate Scientist Can Sue National Review For Defamation, Judge Rules
BY JEFF SPROSS ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
This past Friday, a DC Superior Court judge handed down yet another decision that climate scientist Michael Manns defamation case against the conservative magazine National Review should move forward.
The kick-off for the lawsuit was actually a piece written by Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which referred to Mann as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science because he molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science. The editors eventually removed the offending sentences, but not before Mark Steyn picked them up at National Reviews online blog. Steyn said he wasnt sure hed have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. He then went on to call Manns work on the famous hockey stick graph fraudulent.
So Mann sued Simberg, Steyn, CEI and National Review for defamation. A previous DC Superior Court decision already concluded in July that there was sufficient evidence of actual malice for the lawsuit to proceed, and slapped down the defendants claim that their statements were protected under the First Amendment. National Review then tried to distance itself from CEI by claiming the latters long history of attacks on Mann is what sparked an investigation into the scientists work by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), leading to the latest ruling:
The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As the Court stated in its previous Order, NR Defendants reference to Plaintiff as the man behind the fraudulent climate change hockey stick graph was essentially an allegation of fraud by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a member of the scholarly academy and it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of his profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community. [
]
more
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/03/2564711/climate-scientist-mann-defamation-case/?utm_source
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)They're already positioning themselves as martyrs here. My RW nutjob sister-in-law posted some nonsense after a previous ruling on the case likening the National Review and CEI folks as new Galileo's being persecuted by the "religious" belief of the "powers that be" in human-caused climate change.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Jim__
(14,083 posts)Even if Mann loses the lawsuit, the court should acknowledge that the allegations of fraud have been proven to be false.
QSkier
(30 posts)Maybe a suit like this will wake up a few of these overly hyperbolic conservative prhase-turners to their need for a bit of serious education in science.
Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)for the RW talking heads to actually defend their statements and their "rights to free speech."