Skip to comments.Supreme Court weighs lawsuit pitting climate scientist against skeptics
Posted on 11/21/2019 4:00:35 AM PST by yesthatjallen
The Supreme Court on Friday will consider whether to take up a prominent climatologist's defamation suit against a venerated conservative magazine, in a case that pits climate scientists against the free speech rights of global warming skeptics.
The dispute between scientist Michael Mann and the National Review has drawn attention from lawmakers, interest groups, academics and media, as the court weighs adding a potentially blockbuster First Amendment showdown to an already politically charged docket.
Scientists hail Manns lawsuit as a necessary defense against efforts to erode public confidence in the scientific consensus that climate change is an urgent threat, while free speech advocates have rallied around the iconic conservative publication.
The case has made for strange bedfellows, with the National Review receiving backing from the Center for Investigative Reporting, which has produced award-winning coverage of climate change; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); The Washington Post; and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
This is also a make or break libel and defamation ruling.
It’s ludicrous that the SCOTUS would even consider tasking a case like that.
Democrats and liberals simply put, want to force everyone to comply with their ideas of how life should be and they are willing to use the force of law (IOW, the government) and threats of jail time and fines to accomplish it.
They want to make everything they disagree with illegal.
Little tyrants, all.
I think I have a mancrush on “the EIB’s undocumented immigrant”. :)
National Review gets grief, some of it justified, from around here. But in this they are on the side of the angels.
Mr. Mann is suing NR for publishing what was clearly marked as opinion. They did not make a traditionally libelous claim of fact, they merely stated that, in their opinion, they thought Mann was cooking the books. Mann and the “climate change” crowd want the right to shut up their opponents.
Mann is still in action? They just won’t go away will they?
This douche just had a libel case dismissed in Canada because he failed to produce his raw data from his debunked Hockey stick graph. Seems I remember he had to pick up a sizeable tab of the court costs. I guess he is back, hopefully for another beat down.
There is no consensus. That is a lie.
I think fake-hockey-stick Mann ultimately lost his cases in Canada did he not? Was he not going after Mark Stein and others?
Mann in the slow motion process of losing a defamation lawsuit against Mark Steyn. Mann is a persistent troublesome idiot.
A couple of worthwhile items on the subject.
Michael E Mann, Loser and Liar ...and Scofflaw and Deadbeat?
The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later
UPDATE Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit Mann hides the decline AGAIN...https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/
There is ordinary stupid, and there is Leftist Stupid.
Next up: Flat Earther’s vs Globalists.
Even the Washington Post and the ACLU see the slippery slope.
The article additionally completely ignored that Mann recently lost a similar case in Canada. Mann was not only declared wrong, he was ordered to pay the legal expenses of the winner. Either the author was too biased to include this, or he was so ignorant of the facts that he didn't even know it. Neither alternative suggests anything but fake news.
He should lay low and let it be, not going to end well for him.
Oh, and this is a great little video on data presentation manipulation.
My Gift To Climate Alarmists
If it were truly science the facts would speak for themselves. You wouldn’t need “confidence” in the results. However, if you’re running a scam then you need to dupe the target(s) and their confidence in you is a big part of that. To me the entire lawsuit is a tacit admission the whole global warming thing is a scam.
The good news is that Mann has already lost a defamation suit in Canada. A big factor in that case was his refusal to release the data supporting his scientific findings. That pretty much made it a default judgement for the opposing party in the suit.
The 97% Consensus was created by throwing out the majority of climate science that did not take a position in support or against man-made climate change.
Only 0.5% of papers written at the time supported NASA’s man-made climate position.
In cases of libel, there was once a time when the truth was an absolute defense...then the Left decided to make the truth whatever they wanted it to be, and in the court, that trumps real truth.
21 Nov: Townhall: Climategate + 10: Free Speech on Trial
by Steve Milloy
In October 2012, lead author of the 1998 hockey stick paper, Michael E. Mann, sued the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute for libel in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia...
The good news is that, although news outlets like the Washington Post and Associated Press tend to bat for climate alarmism in their reporting, in the case of Michael Mann vs. Free Speech, they and 15 other news outlets have come to the side of free speech...
Theres a lot at stake for everyone. If this Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce litigation marathon ever makes it out of the Washington, DC court system, the US Supreme Court will likely have the last word.
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.