Nine Years After Filing a Lawsuit, Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wants a Court to Affirm the Truth

[rangerrebew]

Nine Years After Filing a Lawsuit, Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wants a Court to Affirm the Truth of His Science

The case raises difficult issues about free speech in an era of online misinformation and disinformation.
By Marianne Lavelle
February 7, 2021
 

When Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann first threatened to sue two conservative bloggers and their publishers for defamation in 2012, they seemed to welcome the opportunity for a face-off in court.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-regulation think tank, and National Review magazine defended their online commentaries in which they attacked Mann’s science and  compared him to Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State assistant football coach convicted of child sexual abuse. “All’s fair in love, war and political campaigns,” Rand Simberg, the CEI blogger, wrote about Mann’s threat, on his personal website. In an editorial, National Review editor Rich Lowry mused about gaining access to Mann’s files if he sued and hiring a “dedicated reporter to comb through” the material and expose Mann’s “methods and maneuverings to the world.”

That investigative project has never materialized, even though Mann’s side has produced more than 1 million documents in the defamation suit he filed, now entering its ninth year. The material includes emails, correspondence, notes, drafts and discussions with co-authors—including all the background material for his seminal 1998 and 1999 papers charting this century’s dramatic temperature rise, the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph.


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07022021/michael-mann-defamation-lawsuit-competitive-enterprise-institute-national-review/

[rangerrebew]

Since science is supposed to be about questioning and investigation, if a court rules in his favor it means science would become the business of government and only with it's approval could science move forward or backwards.  No doubt science "investigation" would have to eventually get pre-approved by people who know nothing about it - like Rep. Hank Johnson who expressed his concern in a public investigation that Guam would capsize if too many people got on one side of it.

[Sled Dog]

Hmmm....

....a lying climate hoaxer vs a lying RINO magazine...

...who cares who wins?

okay, okay, since the lying RINO magazine was actually publishing truth about how the lying climate hoaxer spread his lies, I suppose the lying RINO magazine should emerge victorious.

But I'm still not ever going to support them.

[Smokin Joe]

Where is the original, un-'adjusted' data set?

[roamer_1]

Since science is supposed to be about questioning and investigation, if a court rules in his favor it means science would become the business of government and only with it's approval could science move forward or backwards.  No doubt science "investigation" would have to eventually get pre-approved by people who know nothing about it - like Rep. Hank Johnson who expressed his concern in a public investigation that Guam would capsize if too many people got on one side of it.

Hate to tell you this, but that is already true. The government controls science by way of grants. They don't give grant money that doesn't support their expected outcome. And thus the 'science' provides the expected outcome...

[Fishrrman]

Smokin Joe asks:
"Where is the original, un-'adjusted' data set?"

Brings to mind something I archived from TOS:
=================================
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.

2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.

3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.

4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.

5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.

6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.

7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.

(compliments of rktman at freerepublic.com)