The Michael Mann lawsuit is a complicated affair and this is not the place to describe the details. But, a decision was just handed down that I know many of you will want to know about.
The brief version is this: Mann sued the National Review and others over defamation. That’s a good suit and he’ll probably eventually win it. Climate science deniers have been trying to paint that as a frivolous suit for years, but it isn’t.
Along the way, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals made a decision that allowed the suit to go forward. The encapsulated version of that: Defendant(s) argued that the case should be thrown out, and the judge said no way Jose to that. Then, defendant(s) appealed that decision, and just now, the court said no way Jose to that too.
(I am being vague about the term “defendant” because there are multiple, the number has changed, an the name by which at least one of the defendants goes has varied over time, and I don’t want to get into those complexities here).
For those of you versed in the relevant area of law, do feel free to read the decision and comment below. This is the PDF file of the decision.
This is the sixth out of six decisions that have come down in favor of science: Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann, Cuccinelli v. UVA/Mann supreme Court Appeal, ATI v. UVA/Mann, ATI v. UVA/Mann Supreme Court Appeal, Mann v. CEI/NRO/etc DC District Court, Mann v. CEI/NRO DC Appeals Court.
ADDED: Professor Mann has issued a statement about this decision:
…on Today’s Appeals Court Decision Affirming My Right to Proceed With My Defamation Suit Against The Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review
Quoting from the decision:
“[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.” (p. 101)
We are particularly pleased that the court, after performing an independent review of the evidence, found that the allegations against me have been ‘definitively discredited’.
I am pleased by this unanimous decision of the court and we now look forward to presenting our claims of defamation to a jury.