Woke Climate Scientist Launches Defamation Case Against Critics

(TargetDailyNews.com) – The climate scientist most famous for his 1988 graph depicting a “hockey stick” formation that he said represented the current threat to the climate from human activity is suing two writers for defamation. The graph claimed to depict a sharp spike in the earth’s temperature in the mid-20th century compared to temperatures over the past 900 years, which Mann said indicated human activity was pushing the global climate toward catastrophe.

Michael Mann’s defamation trial against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn is winding up with closing arguments at the time of this writing. About a dozen years ago, Simberg and Stein criticized Mann’s work as alarmist, but it was the way they did so that formed the basis of Mann’s defamation suit against the two men.

Simberg wrote a blog post for the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute in which he alleged Mann had manipulated his data. Simberg then compared Mann to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State coach convicted of child sexual abuse. He wrote that Mann was the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” and that he had “molested and tortured” his data.

Mark Steyn, also a critic of Mann, picked up on Simberg’s claims and wrote an article in the conservative magazine National Review in which he claimed Mann’s data was “fraudulent.”

Mann’s climate claims have long drawn skepticism, and also widespread support from the United Nations, which included his data in a 2001 climate report. Though Mann’s work has survived institutional reviews, many skeptics no longer have confidence in the academic integrity of major U.S. universities and do not trust them to tell the truth.

The case against Simberg and Stein has been going on for years and has traveled through several courts before winding up to what appears to be a conclusion that could come any day now. In a recent statement, Simberg said the case revolved around whether individuals have the right to “speak freely” about the most pressing societal issues. He said society will suffer if people who give opinions contrary to mainstream views have to contend with “over a decade of litigation.”

The jury’s decision will likely come this spring.