A judge has ruled last week that well-known climate scientist Michael Mann may proceed with his libel suit of two right-wing blogs who compared him to Penn State's convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. The blogs referenced the manufactured email scandal "Climategate" which righwingers love to point to as evidence that climate change is a hoax.
The case stems from two separate blog posts that ran in July of 2012. The first appeared on the web site OpenMarket.org and was then quoted approvingly at length in the online version of the conservative magazine National Review.
In the post quoted on National Review, writer Rand Simberg calls Mann, “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.”
Mann’s lawyers asked National Review to remove the post and apologize to Mann.
The other blog post, by Peter Wood writing for The Chronicle of Higher Education, also drew a comparison between the Sandusky case and Mann’s alleged involvement in “Climategate,” albeit less directly.
The judge ruled that Mann may proceed with the suits, after the publications filed motions to dismiss it, saying the case was likely to succeed on the merits.
Mann sued both The Chronicle and National Review, saying that the publications had defamed him and damaged his reputation. The publications filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which were heard by Washington D.C. Superior Court Judge Natalia Combs Greene last week.
“Plaintiff is a member of the scholarly academy and it is obvious that allegations of fraud could lead to the demise of his profession and tarnish his character and standing in the community,” the judge wrote.
At least there is some redress for truth and reality in our courts and the rightwing has some limits drawn on its insanity.