DC Court Says Climate Change Prof Can Sue The F*ck Out Of National Review And Man We're Broken Up About It
Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied a cert petition in Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review v. Michael E. Mann, letting a DC Court of Appeals order allowing the lawsuit to go forward to stand.
And I don't know about y'all, but I can't wait to see the bros over at the National Review go in front of a DC jury.
When this Supreme Court refuses the opportunity to jump in to both protect the bootlickers at the National Review AND try to debunk climate change, you know someone done fucked up.
Excuse me for a moment.
Okay, let's lawsplain this
Now, as you may know, I really fucking hate bullshit defamation cases. In fact, mocking dumb defamation cases (and threats to file dumb defamation cases over BESMIRCH STATEMENTS) is one of my favorite hobbies.
But this one ... well, this one's just fun.
Michael Mann is the Penn State professor who developed the "hockey stick graph" that shows the dramatic increase in global temperatures in the 20th century. You've probably seen it, it's the one that looks like this:
As described by Courthouse News:
The case centers on Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State famous for developing the so-called "hockey stick graph" that used ice core samples, tree ring analysis and other data to show global temperatures rising dramatically in the 20th century after a general trend of cooling for most of history.
Mann's work has been instrumental in the charged debate over the threats posed by climate change, as the graph he helped develop was a key point of evidence that human activity is driving the warming of the planet.
The graph has been the subject of hot debate and some climate skeptics have called into question its validity, though peer-reviewed studies have largely backed up Mann's findings.
Despite the overwhelming support for Mann's work, climate change deniers -- like those at the National Review and CEI -- still like to pretend it doesn't exist. And after hackers released a bunch of emails from climate scientists in the so-called "Climategate" scandal, those same sycophants deliberately misread the emails and took statements out of context to claim Mann was a liar who had manipulated data.
In response, a variety of organizations, from Penn State to the EPA to the British House of Commons, investigated Mann's work. He was cleared of any wrongdoing.
But haters gonna hate and liars gonna lie, so outlets like CEI and the National Review continued their crusade against saving the planet.
In July 2012, CEI lackey Rand Simberg wrote a piece comparing Professor Mann to ... Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky.
Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
Not to be outdone, Mark Steyn wrote a blog post for the National Review Online quoting from Simberg's post and calling Mann's work "fraudulent." And all of this happened after Mann and his team had been cleared of wrongdoing
This case is still at an early stage and it will take a while to work its way through the DC courts. In the meantime, I'll just be sitting over here laughing as Professor Mann continues this battle for his reputation.
The NRO, for its part, used the opportunity to whine about the "very liberal" DC courts and do a little fundraising from the gullible sycophants who make up its readership.
I guess the snowflakes over at NRO are feeling a little triggered today. Quick, somebody get them a safe space!
Send money to us, not the National Review.