As the theory of man-made climate change continues to crumble, especially with the incoming Trump administration, one of the biggest names perpetuating its merits is taking a new approach to dealing with detractors: lawsuits.
Michael Mann, a professor from Penn State who reached fame status for his “hockey stick” portrayal of global warming trends — an image that has been thoroughly debunked, by the way — is reportedly now suing those who would dare to question his work.
Scientific fascism, in other words, is how Mann hopes to temper criticisms of his mythical treatise that cars, cows, and other things people use are causing the polar ice caps to melt. According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Mann has already launched a case against the free speech rights of others who scrutinize his work.
One of Mann’s targets is the political magazine National Review, which published a 270-word blog article criticizing Mann as “the man behind the fraudulent … ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” You can see the controversial graph for yourself here.
Mann’s beef with the National Review seems to go further, as the magazine reportedly dubbed Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” except that instead of molesting children like Sandusky did, Mann “has molested and tortured data” surrounding climate science.
This would hardly be the first time that Mann has sustained criticism for his rocky work. Numerous others have questioned not only the premise behind his work, but also the extent of it, including David Hand, a former president of Britain’s Royal Statistical Society, who wrote that Mann’s hockey blade depiction was “exaggerated.”
In addition to this, Mann has had to bear criticisms that his work is duly “sloppy,” to which he apparently takes great offense as evidenced by his launching a legal crusade against those who go after his work and subject it to closer examination. (RELATED: To take a closer look at the science behind climate change, check out ClimateScienceNews.com)
Ironically enough, Mann has repeatedly launched similar criticisms against those who question his work, accusing them of engaging in “pure scientific fraud.” Denying that man-made climate change exists, he contends, is in and of itself “fraudulent.”
Like others in his camp, Mann believes that those who deny man-made climate change are “knowingly lying,” and in many cases are taking “corporate payoffs” for their supposedly errant position on the matter.
But is it justifiable to actually try to sue people or entities who disagree with you? In Mann’s view, it most certainly is. But in the view of the courts — and of those being sued within their halls — a much different opinion appears to be on the horizon.
National Review is already seeking to dismiss Mann’s case against it, citing a plethora of Supreme Court precedents. Merely voicing one’s opinion, as the National Review writer who penned the criticism of Mann did, is not a constitutionally valid reason for allowing damages to be imposed against someone, and it is on this precedent that National Review‘s countering of the suit primarily lies.
“Punishing such criticism because a jury disagrees with it does not aid the search for truth, but impedes it by stifling conflicting views,” write Michael Carvin and Anthony Dick for the WSJ.
This reflects the position of the liberal Justice William Brennan, who once declared that “truth may not be the subject of either civil or criminal sanctions where discussion of public affairs is concerned,” as such speech “is the essence of self-government.”
The only way to truly address scientific controversies like man-made climate change is to continue having civil discussions that involve the presenting of evidence and citations to back one’s position. Seeking damages in a court like Mann is doing only minimizes his position and, quite frankly, is the purest demonstration of petty childishness that the world has yet seen from climate activists.
At the same time, Mann’s case is still moving forward after trial court Judge Natalia Combs Greene ruled that National Review‘s accusations could be considered an accusation of fraud, despite having supposedly undergone rigorous review by various bodies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The case has since been transferred to a different judge, Frederick Weisberg, who reportedly holds similar views as Judge Greene.
Where the case will ultimately go remains to be seen. Supporters of Mann’s cause see it as an important step towards silencing “deniers” who they claim are “anti-science.” But opposers see this as an incredible affront to free speech rights, particularly the kind that our Founding Fathers sought to defend in order to prevent the type of scientific dictatorship that Mann apparently wants to implement.
Discover more efforts of climate change fascists to censor REAL science at CensoredScience.com.
Sources for this article include: