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 Mann’s 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).
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Is this the Michael Mann who would not disclose his research notes on climate change while at the University of Virginia? UVA spent $500,000 plus protecting these notes. Maybe discovery in this litigation could free them?
Um, no. Sorry, Charlie, I disagree. It is NOT worth reading and if SCOTUS actually hears this case, it is make or break for SCOTUS with pertinent ramifications should he win.
But he won’t win. He can’t, not on merit.
Furthermore, the article itself is a fraud, ignoring 100% Mann’s technical loss to Dr. Tim Ball in BC for Mann’s refusal to produce the data for his ubiquitous graph.
The article is birdcage liner, not worth anyone’s time to peruse beyond the excerpt. Did you read it???
The Hill is MSNBC redux. The only reason I ever read their soiled pages was for John Solomon, who can now be found at his own website thanks to the machine having targeted him.
Mann cannot win any defamation lawsuit without producing his data, arguing before a biased court, or both.
If he wins at SCOTUS, it is an indictment of the Court and a greater red flag that not only Trump must be president for another 4 years, but Republicans better pull their heads out of their asses (and I’m not referring exclusively to the politicians).
John Kruzel @ The Hill deserves to be excoriated for this piece of trash, the only citation with merit being the following of Mann:
“In short, he risks making an ass of himself. But that hasn’t stopped him before.”
Articles more worth reading for those with a “serious interest” in the fraud are the following:
https://climatechangedispatch.com/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
“The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making global warming scam in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.”
“The Canadian court issued it’s [sic] final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.
Not only did the court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. A detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.
This extraordinary outcome is expected to trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.” (snip)
Dr Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers (the ‘working out’) behind the world-famous ‘hockey stick’ graph[.]”
snip
“Punishment for Civil Contempt
Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have wilfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.”
GLARING omissions by The Hill. But who’s surprised? Not I.
Fyi, find Solomon now at
www.johnsolomonreports.com
The very same, though I don’t think that discovery has produced those elusive notes.
Odd, since the core of the scientific method is reproducibility of results. You would think that he would broadcast them far and wide so his peers could reproduce his results and bask in his genius.
I agree Mann shouldn’t ultimately win, but we want to win by proving he is a fraud not on free speech grounds.
I disagree, NR was sued for stating an opinion, they are defending their right to an opinion.
If they started arguing the facts, it undermines their basic argument that opinion cannot be libelous. This case is about anyone’s protected right to publish their opinion, as long as it is clear that it is an opinion.
It would be libelous to purport, as fact without evidence, “Joe Biden molests puppies”. But it is and should be protected to state without having to provide evidence “I think Joe Biden likes to molest puppies,” or “puppies should be fearful if Joe Biden enters the room.”
in a stunning development, Mann chooses to identify as a Wo-Mann since he has no race card to play.
/sarc
It might not be so ludicrous if the SCOTUS rules by an overwhelming majority or unanimously that NR has the right to express its opinion, because this is EXACTLY what the 1st Amendment is about - freedom of speech. It would put a stake through the heart of efforts to control speech from the national level down to tiny municipalities, HOAs and individual school districts.
I hope that they take this case, because I see no other result than a win for the 1A.
Stein wanted to go toe to toe on the facts. In Canada they did and conservatives won because Mann didn’t produce the data. Winning on “I am a moron but I have the right to express my opinion.” is not a win for conservatives. Let the left win those battles.
“I agree Mann shouldn’t ultimately win, but we want to win by proving he is a fraud not on free speech grounds.”
1) About NR’s right under the 1st Amendment to not merely have its own opinion, but to put that opinion out in the public domain without being punished for disagreeing with any one person, or even every single person; and
2) It is far bigger than Mann and and entire “Climate Change” issue. This is about one of our most basic freedoms which, while it is under assault by the climate Nazis, is also under assault in virtually every sphere of human endeavor. The Left ONLY wins when they control speech, because that then allows them to control thought. This a huge problem in multiple areas, with but one example being the issue of “what pronoun are you “allowed” to use when addressing a person or group.” People have actually lost their jobs for using the “wrong” pronoun (”wrong” only for the last couple of years, and according to a bunch of demented lunatics, but wrong enough to have serious consequences that should not be permitted if the rights protected by the 1st Amendment are to be protected.
This case is about our most basic laws, and thus about what kind of a society we will have. “Climate change” is a pitifully small issue when compared to that (well, unless you believe that climate change will destroy all life on the planet in the next 11 1/2 years or so).
“Winning on “I am a moron but I have the right to express my opinion.” is not a win for conservatives. Let the left win those battles.”
However, the 1st Amendment protects several God-given rights from infringement by any level of government (well, just the Feds, but all governments when the 14th Amendment is applied, as has already been done WRT free speech). The 1st protects, among other things, anyone’s right to express their opinion about any subject, regardless of how many people (or even if EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON) disagrees. That right is incredibly worthy of protection, and since the NR published an OPINION piece that criticized Mann, that is the only basis on which they should be fighting against his suit. Had NR stated facts (such as, “Mann knowingly fudged the data on the climate to come up with his “hockey stick” and to gain funding for climate studies”), well THEN an argument over the fact vs. fiction of “climate science” would be in order.
The most important thing that they teach people in law school is to correctly identify the issue at hand. EVERYTHING else is secondary. With respect, you are missing the issue. You issue - fighting the climate nazis and their corrupt data - is a very worthy one with which I wholeheartedly agree. But it isn’t the issue in this particular case.
A scientist should recognize irony quotes.
Do disagree that science is a process and that every theory will eventually found to be flawed?
“Winning on “I am a moron but I have the right to express my opinion.” is not a win for conservatives. Let the left win those battles.”
Sorry, my previous post quoted a different statement of yours than the actual one to which I wanted to respond. The actual quote of yours from #44 is:
“I agree Mann shouldn’t ultimately win, but we want to win by proving he is a fraud not on free speech grounds.”
Concur, this case is a free speech case. It is not a “Michael Mann is a liar and I can prove it” case.
UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAIN
Anthony Watts / August 22, 2019
Posted on August 24, 2019 by John Hinderaker in Climate
Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case
The article says NR “accused Mann of scientific fraud”. That seems like a fact issue not an opinion issue. However, I recognize that a fair question is can you trust the Hill to frame NR’s writings fairly and correctly?
It seems like NR could defend their column under both free speech opinion grounds and fact grounds. I understand free speech grounds are cheaper to litigate and if they win they don’t need to litigate the facts but can’t they litigate both grounds?. I am more concerned that global warming is a big power grab by the government that will change the relationship between government and the people and have major ramifications for society. Protecting newspapers printing articles then hiding behind an opinion shield doesn’t worry me near as much.
NR stating that “Mann is a scientific fraud.” is a much more valuable statement than “In my opinion, Mann is a scientific fraud.”. It would be nice if someone would say and defend the former.
He is hiding the Medieval Warming Period and The Little Ice Age in his data.
Hopefully the majority Justices will destroy the nonsense of
“consensus” and reference that at one time the scientific consensus was the earth was flat and at the center of the universe.
And I agree with you on that point.
The thing I am concerned about is that they would rule in an unfavorable way. One would think that this would be an open and shut case, but........
I don’t trust ANYONE to make the right decision these days.
We’ve been stabbed in the back too many times.
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.