Skip to comments.Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views
Posted on 08/14/2014 9:13:19 AM PDT by jazusamo
WASHINGTON News outlets, advocacy groups and fellow think tanks are jumping to the defense of a conservative-leaning D.C. policy center and publication being sued for libel by a scientist who didn't like what they had to say about his work on global warming.
Michael Mann, a prominent professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, has long been a target of climate change skeptics for his work claiming temperatures have risen dramatically in recent decades, and has sued before when groups tried to debunk his data.
But this time, Mann is being accused of going too far with his case against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review and others. Critics say the suit threatens to violate constitutionally protected rights to opinion and fair comment, particularly in an area of scientific debate.
On Monday, The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press -- along with 26 other groups including The Washington Post, Bloomberg and Fox News -- filed an amici curiae, or friend of the court, brief with the D.C. Court of Appeals. An amici curiae is a brief submitted to a court to raise additional points of view to sway a courts decision.
While Mann essentially claims that he can silence critics because he is right, the judicial system should not be the arbiter of either scientific truth or correct public policy, the brief states, adding that a participant in the rough-and-tumble of public debate should not be able to use a lawsuit like this to silence his critics, regardless of whether one agrees with Mann or defendants.
The suit was originally filed after Rand Simberg at the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a piece referring to Mann as the Jerry Sandusky of climate science because he molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How long till they just send dissidents to the camps?
Find out where his money comes from in deposition and discovery!! I’m thinking it comes straight from Buffett and Soros types.
Would this lawsuit not open Dr. Mann to discovery? That would mean all his data, methods of research and correspondence. This lawsuit may be a good thing.
Lawyer types please respond to my question.
If it was up to this enviro-nazi the dissidents would probably already be there.
Yeah. “Who funds your chair?” “How much money does Petrobras pay you to keep the US from developing its own resources?”
Per the last of the article a court already ruled his unpublished work including emails are not subject to freedom of information act however it seems to me the defendants should get it in discovery, but I’m no legal beagle.
Isn’t Mark Stein involved in this, too?
“CEI eventually took down the statements but not before National Review writer Mark Steyn picked them up and took it a step further by calling Manns research fraudulent.
“Mann responded by suing CEI, National Review and the authors of the pieces.”
Yes, the lawsuit opens up Mr. Mann to full discovery. Everything he has said and done, and all of his “data,” becomes discoverable. So does his money trail. There is very little that can be covered by a protective order. The general rule is that everything is discoverable, even though it may not later be admissible at trial.
The problem is money. Discovery is awfully expensive. If the University or their insurer is defending Mann, he may be the one with the deeper pocket to fund the litigation.
It looks like Mann is suing National Review because of his article.
Let me add one caveat to the above:
While the information may be discoverable, and not necessarily admissible still holds, I do have to clarify a point regarding a protective order. Mr. Mann should not be able to get a protective order to prohibit discovery to the other party. But he may be able to get a protective or “gag” order to prohibit the other party from further (public) disclosure of same.
The lawsuit, if allowed to proceed, would indeed open all of Mann's research and correspondence up to discovery. It would also open up all of National Review's files, research, drafts, etc., to discovery by Mann. More importantly, though, the cost of discovery would put National Review into bankruptcy long before it's over. Hence the push by the media (including both right- and left-leaning media) to have this case tossed right away.
Mann and his fellow activist should be in prison for fraud. The East Anglia University email dump PROVES without any doubt that Mann and his co-conspirators have been continually perpetrating a hoax. This website gives all the details, documents, timeline about the global warming agenda lie.
His posture proves this is not about science. A serious scientist would give over all his data and reports to the scientific community for review, not just to his cohorts in the AGW community to get a paper published.
Thanks for the link.