Breezy--it's good stuff like this that keeps me coming to the tree.
THX
Printable View
Court: Climate scientist can sue conservative writers over alleged defamation
Multiple investigations after the email leaks said Mann did not
commit fraud or misconduct, and his research was backed up by peer
reviews.
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate
science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and
tortured data in service of politicized science that could have dire
consequences for the nation and planet,” Simberg wrote. The Competitive
Enterprise Institute eventually removed that part, calling it
“inappropriate.”
Steyn later wrote that Simberg may have gone too
far with the comparison. But Steyn said Simberg “has a point,” calling
Mann’s hockey stick graph “fraudulent,” and labeling him “the very
ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” referring to the tree-ring
observations Mann used.
Simberg and Steyn argued that their
comments were protected as free speech under the First Amendment, and
unsuccessfully asked the court to dismiss Mann’s claims.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...-over-alleged?
Dogwit
An analysis of the court's decision --
The most important political takeaway from the Mann defamation case against denialists
Updated hockey stick --
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1wojETUAAELHaR.jpg
OH NOOOOOOSE Not The Hockey Stick Chart!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDE...1j&index=9
Michael E. Mann Explains His Hockey Stick Graph
Michael E. Mann is a renowned pioneer in the study of
climate change and the understanding of how humans impact the Earth’s
climate. In 1999, Mann and a team of researchers published a graph which
came to be known as the “Hockey Stick Graph,” now an iconic symbol in
the fight against climate change.
In a recent episode of Straight Talk MD, Dr. Sweeny spoke with Michael Mann about his
infamous “Hockey Stick Graph,” what it means, and the controversy
surrounding it.
http://straighttalkmd.com/michael-e-...y-stick-graph/
Chilling the Climate Change Deniers
Last month, the District of Columbia Court
of Appeals ruled that Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric sciences at
Penn State University, could proceed in a defamation suit against
climate change-denying blogger Rand Simberg. The opinion,
authored by Senior Judge Vanessa Ruiz, upheld a lower court dismissal
of a motion by the defense to have the case thrown out at least in part
on grounds that Mann’s claim was intended to impose costs on and silence
his ideological opponents. In finding that Mann’s case was “likely to
succeed” on its merits, Ruiz forced climate change deniers accusing
scientists of incompetence or conspiracy to reconsider the legal
ramifications of their rhetoric. Legal experts disagree on whether or
not this is a good thing.
https://fsmedia.imgix.net/11/35/7c/b...,compress&q=75
https://www.inverse.com/article/2642...famation-libel
WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation claims
against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn are now going forward in the
District of Columbia Superior Court.
The claims arose after Simberg and Steyn wrote their oppositions
to Dr. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph that depicted a dramatic increase in
global temperatures during the 20th century. In December, the D.C. Court of
Appeals ruled that Mann can continue with his defamation claims.
Simberg’s accusations, written on July 13, 2012, compared Mann’s research to Jerry Sandusky’s child-abuse scandal at Penn State University. An excerpt read, “Mann could
be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of
molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in service of politicized
science that could have dire consequences for the nation and planet.”
http://legalnewsline.com/stories/511...it-can-proceed