(P.S. He should have been disbarred as well! – promoted by lowkell)
More excellent news on former UVA Professor Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against the “conservative” (aka, “climate science denying”) rag “national Review,” as well as other climate science deniers who viciously attacked Mann (e.g., Rand Simberg of the fossil-fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute disgustingly referred to Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science” because he “molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science”). Most of us missed it because of the Labor Day holiday, but “[t]his past Friday, a DC Superior Court judge handed down yet another decision that climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation case against the conservative magazine National Review should move forward.” Check it out.
The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits. As the Court stated in its previous Order, NR Defendants’ reference to Plaintiff as “the man behind the fraudulent climate change ‘hockey stick’ graph” was essentially an allegation of fraud by Plaintiff. Plaintiff is a member of the scholarly academy and it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of his profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community.
Accusations of fraud, especially where such accusations are made frequently through the continuous usage of such words as “whitewashed,” “intellectually bogus,” “ringmaster of the tree-ring circus,” and “cover-up” amount to more than rhetorical hyperbole. In addition, whether the NR Defendants induced the EPA to investigate Plaintiff is not critical to this analysis because it is not disputed that the NR Defendants knew that the EPA and several reputable bodies had investigated Plaintiff and concluded that his work was sound. The evidence before the Court indicates the likelihood that “actual malice” is present in the NR Defendants’ conduct.
Of course, that is all just as true about Virginia’s Witch Hunter in Chief, aka our Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, who was clearly filled with “actual malice” in his persecution of Mann. For instance, Cuccinelli claimed that that “Mann knowingly included ‘false information, unsubstantiated claims and/or were otherwise misleading’ in his publications.” If that’s not slander, libel, and/or defamation, I’m not sure what would qualify as such. So why isn’t Cuccinelli being sued along with National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc? I don’t know, but I’m going to check into it, because I see absolutely no reason why he doesn’t richly deserve to be facing major, adverse consequences for his outrageous actions.