This story was originally published in the Guardian, and is reproduced as part of the Climate Desk Collaboration. This week, a lawsuit that was first filed over 10 years ago by an esteemed scientist against alleged defamation of a rightwing analyst and blogger, went to court. The University of was the plaintiff in the 2012 court case.
As part of the Climate Desk collaboration, this article, which was first published by the Guardian, is reproduced below.
This week saw the trial of a lawsuit that was initially filed more than ten years ago and brought by an eminent climate scientist over reported defamation by two right-wing bloggers and analysts.
Earth and climate scientist Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania filed the 2012 lawsuit, claiming that virtual attacks on his work constitute defamation.
The lawsuit is aimed at two authors: Mark Steyn, a blogger for the National Review, and Rand Simberg, an analyst at the rightwing thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute, who compared Mann to an adult child molester who had been found guilty. Mann initially pursued both publishers, but a court decided in 2021 that neither National Review nor the Competitive Enterprise Institute could be held accountable for the assaults.
The attacks are said to have been a part of an overall campaign against Mann by skeptics of the climate who are linked to fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch.
Concerns about the case arise from the current rise in net climate scientist abuse as well as the spread of false information regarding the global climate crisis.
According to experts, the attacks on Mann were part of a larger campaign launched against him by an organization of climate skeptics linked to the fossil fuel billionaire Charles Koch.
The National Review often publishes articles dismissing climate concern science as alarmist and has even accepted Koch-linked funding. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which asserts to combat” climate alarmism,” has financial ties to the Charles Koch Foundation.
A number of Koch network groups pounded Mann with requests for freedom of information after the eminent scientist co-published the well-known “hockey stick” graph in 1998, which revealed extraordinary global warming in the previous century. A Republican congressman who supported Koch’s PAC even served him with a subpoena.
The trial is expected to last until at least February 6 and be concluded by a jury verdict. Opening statements in the case started on Thursday and were livestreamed. As part of the Climate Desk collaboration, this article, which was first published by the Guardian, is reproduced around. This week’s trial began for a lawsuit that was initially filed more than ten years ago and was brought by an eminent climate scientist against admitted defamation by two right-wing bloggers and analysts. The University of California filed a lawsuit in 2012.
This story was originally published in the Guardian, and is reproduced as part of the Climate Desk Collaboration. This week, a lawsuit that was first filed over 10 years ago by an esteemed scientist against alleged defamation of a rightwing analyst and blogger, went to court. The University of was the plaintiff in the 2012 court case.
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2024/01/michael-mann-climate-scientist-defamation-trial-denial/
