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 ...
Mann made himself the issue and now wants to complain that no one had a right to point it out.
Lizzie Warren is already designing her black uniform with armband and drawing up plans.
She would enjoy that, I bet
In an earlier case against Mann adjudicated in Canada, he paid the settlement rather than expose his work to a review by a court appointed board of scientists. The settlement was in the 7 figure range so that should tell you a lot about is data and methods.
He has also lost a similar case against Mark Steyn because he refused to have his work reviewed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.