Climate Scientist Can Sue National Review For Defamation, Judge Rules

[n2doc]

BY JEFF SPROSS ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2013

This past Friday, a DC Superior Court judge handed down yet another decision that climate scientist Michael Mann’s 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 Review’s online blog. Steyn said he wasn’t sure he’d 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 Mann’s 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 latter’s long history of attacks on Mann is what sparked an investigation into the scientist’s 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]

1. Very interesting. I wonder if any of the defendants will offer to settle.

[caraher]

5. I doubt it

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]

6. It's holy principle to them, possibly literally; they'll fight it to the Supreme Court. (nt)

[Jim__]

2. Good news. Calling someone's work fraudulent is defamatory.

Even if Mann loses the lawsuit, the court should acknowledge that the allegations of fraud have been proven to be false.

[QSkier]

3. It's about time!

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]

4. Yes, it is about time....

for the RW talking heads to actually defend their statements and their "rights to free speech."

[struggle4progress]

7. good