A climatologist who was criticized for 'the rapid rise in temperature that looks like a hockey stick' wins the trial
The US Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the appeal of think tanks and publishers who were accused of defamation for criticizing authors of research articles on global warming. The series of trials was triggered by a graph of the Earth's temperature changing abruptly like a hockey stick due to global warming, so the series of disturbances is called the “ hockey stick controversy ”.
US Supreme Court lets climate scientist's defamation claim proceed-Reuters
Supreme Court: Penn State climate change scientist's lawsuit against National Review can continue-The Morning Call
Supreme Court won't throw out climate scientist Michael Mann's defamation suit against National Review-CNNPolitics
Supreme Court & National Review v. Mann-Free Speech in Abeyance | National Review
Supreme Court allows climate scientist's defamation case to proceed | Ars Technica
Prof. Michael E. Mann , a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, published a paper summarizing the results of research on global warming in 1998. Prof. Mann pointed out in the paper that 'we measured the temperature change over the past 1000 years from the tree rings and found that the temperature rose sharply in the 19th century.' The graph created from the research results at that time is the following image.
Since the graph showing a sudden rise in temperature looks like a hockey stick, this graph is called a `` hockey stick curve '', and `` skeptics of data against global warming are being `` data falsified '' It was decided to collect blame.
Of particular criticism was Rand Simberg, a columnist at the Thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) based in Washington, DC. Simberg cited Jerry Sandusky , a former American football coach at Pennsylvania State University, who was arrested for sexual abuse against 10 boys, `` Prof. Mann raped data instead of raping children. An article that included “The Meteorological Jerry Sandusky” was posted on the CEI website. Mark Stein, a writer for the American political magazine National Review , quoted Simberg's column and published an article in the magazine stating that Professor Mann's research is fraudulent.
In response to such criticism, Prof. Mann filed a lawsuit against Mr. Simberg and Mark Stein for 'defamation.' In response to this, Mr. Sinberg and others called for the appeal of Prof. Mann to be a litigation , and asked the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss Prof. Prof. However, the Court of Appeals dismissed Mr. Simberg et al.'S (PDF file) in 2016. Mr. Sinberg and others continued to request retrials, but finally the Court of Appeals decided in March 2019 to refuse retrials.
Mr. Simberg and his colleagues appealed to the United States Supreme Court, who rejected the ruling, but the Supreme Court dismissed Mr. Simberg et al. On November 25, 2019 and appealed to Professor Mann for defamation Judgment to allow that. The Supreme Court did not issue a comment on the ruling, but Judge Samuel Arito, who was involved in the trial, said, “This issue raises issues that are close to the core of the constitution's guaranteed rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. ' PDF ' filed a written opinion . Ars Technica , a technical news site, said, “Judge Arito has not explicitly stated whether the alleged defamation is subject to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides for freedom of expression. The judge would have wanted the Supreme Court to accept Mr. Sinberg's claims, ”he said.
National Review, who is also a party to the trial, said, “We will never abandon this fight, but we are dissatisfied with the Supreme Court's choice to throw this issue out,” he continued with Professor Mann. He expressed his frustration and expressed dissatisfaction with the Supreme Court decision. On the other hand, Professor Mann commented to an American broadcaster CNN that he was satisfied with the Supreme Court decision, which was almost unanimously agreed, and look forward to future trials.
Prof. Mann's complaint of defamation is expected to be returned to the District of Columbia Court for further trials after the defendant's appeal for withdrawal of the complaint has been abandoned.
in Science, Posted by log1l_ks