Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor
A D.C.-based libertarian think tank petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on a years-long defamation case involving leaked emails from climate scientists that seriously undermined the credibility of alarming global warming predictions.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) wants to overturn a lower court decision allowing Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation suit to move forward over free speech concerns.
“The D.C. Court of Appeals’ decision in CEI v. Michael Mann not only threatens the exercise of free speech, it also threatens scientific dissent and the possibility of robust political debate on matters of major importance,” CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said in a statement.
CEI filed its petition Thursday. National Review is also petitioning the high court, CEI said. (RELATED: Meteorologist Fact-Checks Ocasio-Cortez On Climate Change)
The D.C. appeals court broke with precedent by ruling that free speech protections did not apply to “speech opining on public controversies like the debate over climate science,” CEI argues in its petition.
Mann filed suit against CEI, CEI adjunct fellow Rand Samburg, conservative columnist Mark Steyn and National Review in 2012.
“It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics,” Mann’s attorneys wrote in his 2012 complaint. “It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.”
Mann’s initial complaint also falsely claimed he and his colleagues had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mann was, in fact, not awarded the Nobel for his climate science work.
CEI and National Review published comments comparing Penn State’s investigations into Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph to the just-concluded investigation into Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach convicted of sexually abusing young boys.
CEI admitted comparing Mann to Sandusky was “inappropriate,” but the think tank did not retract its criticisms of Mann’s underlying research and allegations of wrongdoing based on leaked “Climategate” emails. The controversy stemmed from the release of hacked emails taken from University of East Anglia servers.
Many global warming skeptics said the emails showed malfeasance on the part of scientists involved in United Nations climate assessments.
The Climategate emails “revealed that Mann’s famous ‘hockey stick’ diagram employed a ‘trick’ ‘to hide the decline’ in global temperatures” and “that Mann and his allies sought to block inquiry into their research, data, and statistical methods,” CEI wrote in its petition.
The D.C. Superior Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, so they filed an appeal with the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2014. The appeals court ruled against CEI and co-defendants in 2016, but dismissed several counts brought by Mann.
A number of organizations and scientists filed amicus briefs in support of CEI’s appeals court case, including the American Civil Liberties Union, The Washington Post and climate scientist Judith Curry.
“We hope the Supreme Court will hear this case and reaffirm the fundamental First Amendment protection of free speech,” Kazman said.
Mann did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Should the science itself be fully revealed, its incompetence and lack of integrity would be obvious to all. However, we have already tipped into the Landscheidt mini Iceage and the climate itself is invalidating the official global warming model. See Paullitely.com for the verifiable details. It will be obvious to all by 2021.
Political objectives run by legal cost attrition is a shameful mark upon the entire legal system. It’s almost as bad as courtroom science for jury manipulation.
Mann’s main personal problem isn’t “defamation of character” but rather his personal “inflamation of character”.
Mann is an overinflated character. Is that an adhom? Then put it this way, Mann’s problem is his character. Unfortunately, his character is our problem too.
More than several times I was defamed in the news media. I was even investigated twice by our state attorney general and who found nothing wrong yet I was blasted in the news media as if I had been tried and convicted in court. A couple of times the attacks and name calling was so bad I went to lawyers. I was going to file a defamation suit. My lawyers said I was too much of a public figure. First Amendment consideration would trump my complain. I can assure I am far less of a public figure or as well known as Mann. This is case of another liberal court creating “rights and privileges” out of thin air.
And who the heck is funding Mann’s attorneys?
“Mann’s initial complaint also falsely claimed he and his colleagues had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mann was, in fact, not awarded the Nobel for his climate science work.”
I suggest an edit here to make it more clear that Michael Mann is not the recipient of any Nobel Prize of any sort nor for any reason.
He did get the official logo prize at the IPCC for awhile.
What ever happened to the Mann and Ball court case… something about Mann should be in the State Pen rather than Penn State. Mann has thin skin when it comes to good humor 🙂
““It is one thing to engage in discussion about debatable topics,” Mann’s attorneys wrote in his 2012 complaint. “It is quite another to attempt to discredit consistently validated scientific research through the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel prize recipient.””
What unmitigated BS! From What I have been reading, it’s more like, “CONSISTENTLY UNVALIDATED scientific research” since there has yet to be any sign of actual ‘warming’! How can the entire world’s governments be so brainwashed? The evidence is there, for any fool to see!