Climate scientist Michael Mann plans libel suit against the National Review

By Dan Satterfield
22 July 2012 I am amazed at how political beliefs can lead people to say and do really ignorant things. I had a comment this week from someone who complained that it was nearly impossible to get information about climate change from a non political source, and he has a real point. It’s one of the reasons that I started writing this blog and hopefully I have made it a little easier to sort out the politics from what is real. I steer away from commenting much on the day-to-day assault on science from political and certain religious groups, but I do make an exception when something is so egregious that it really should get some attention. The North Carolina Legislature’s inane attempt to outlaw the science of sea level rise is one recent exception. This post is another. This week the National Review published an insulting and (very likely) libelous article about climate change expert Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University. I suspect that a formal apology and a retraction are on the way. if not, Michael Mann will have a very good case against them. The writer of that article deserves to defend his words in court and I suspect he will. THE FACTS Dr. Mann has been subjected to an overwhelming amount of hate mail and death threats, (most of which are very badly spelled) because he published a paper several years ago, with the image above in it. You may have heard about this image, it’s called the “Hockey Stick”, and let me say right here, that no matter what you may read on the internet, this image has stood the test of dozens of reviews and investigations. Every scientific peer group that has looked at it says it’s good science and if anyone tells you differently, they are giving you political propaganda. To put it in plain words: the graph is correct, get over it. However, some people cannot seem to get over it, and for those whose politics conflict with scientific reality, (whether it be evolution, climate change, or the age of the Earth) this image was too powerful to be ignored. Numerous attempts have been made to somehow or someway discredit Dr. Mann (or his graph).  Fortunately, they’ve all failed and Dr. Mann’s famous graph stands as good science. Not only that, but he has been totally cleared of every accusation against him. Dr. Mann has an excellent book out about his modern-day walk through the trials of Galileo, and I highly recommend it. Oh, and Dr. Mann posted a note on his Facebook page that he has indeed hired a very good attorney and plans to sue the National Review for what they wrote. After reading the insulting article in the Nat. Review, I suspect he will win in a big way. (Update July 24- the letter written by Dr. Mann’s attorney demanding an apology and retraction is available here.) […]

Climate Expert Dr. Michael Mann Plans Libel Suit Against The National Review

By Max Kennerly, Esq.
31 July 2012 The entire scientific community, save a dwindling number of attention-seeking contrarians, believes temperatures on Earth since 1950 have risen by a little under 1 degree Celsius as a result of humanity’s relentless burning of fossil fuels. Even the Koch brothers’ own funded study agrees. As Bill McKibben explains, the global warming math is pretty simple: another 2 degrees increase will probably create a catastrophic environmental disruption, and right now in the ground are “proven reserves” of more than five times the fossil fuels needed to produce amounts of carbon dioxide sufficient to create that 2 degree increase. But this is America, where everyone has freedom of speech, the constitutionally-guaranteed right to open your mouth and remove all doubt that you are indeed a fool, and so anyone, anywhere can show themselves to be scientifically illiterate by claiming there’s no proof of global warming. What Americans don’t have, though, is the right to make up falsehoods about others. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 U.S. 1 (1990)(rejecting attempt to dress up defamatory factual assertion as “opinion,” noting, “at common law, even the privilege of fair comment did not extend to ‘a false statement of fact, whether it was expressly stated or implied from an expression of opinion,’” quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 566, Comment a (1977)). I’ve written a lot about defamation in the past; perhaps there’s some right to lie about yourself and the Congressional Medal of Honor you didn’t win, but, at least for now, the Supreme Court has rejected every effort to claim a right to maliciously defame others. Which brings us to Michael Mann, the physicist and climatologist at Pennsylvania State University famous for his work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and for the “hockey stick graph” showing a dramatic increase in global temperature over the past century. He’s also been called “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.” Wait, what? […] In many ways, the more hyperbolic the speech, the more likely it is to be protected. But things change when you talk about fraud in one’s profession. In Pennsylvania, “it is well-settled law that a communication which ascribes to another conduct, character, or a condition that would adversely affect his fitness for the proper conduct of his business, trade, or profession, is defamatory per se.” Pelagatti v. Cohen, 536 A. 2d 1337 (Pa. 1987). The classic example of defaming someone’s fitness is to accuse them of “fraud” or other dishonesty in their business. The presence of per se defamation is doubly beneficial to Mann because, “with words that are actionable per se, only general damages, i.e., proof that one’s reputation was actually affected by defamation or that one suffered personal humiliation, or both, must be proven; special damages, i.e., out-of-pocket expenses borne by the plaintiff due to the defamation, need not be proven.” Joseph v. Scranton Times LP, 959 A. 2d 322 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008). Mann thus has a non-frivolous claim: the First Amendment is not a license to call others a fraud. But that’s not quite the end of the story. […] In my humble opinion, Steyn’s and Simberg’s accusations of fraud are provably false, but the answer certainly isn’t guaranteed as a matter of law, and I can see many courts granting their inevitable motion to dismiss. […]

Can Michael Mann Sue The National Review For Defamation Over Accusations Of Scientific Fraud?