The title of this post refers to the case of Michael Mann, the scientist who produced the infamous Hockey-stick graph which denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc. and Mark Steyn, a journalist who 12 years ago wrote an article in which he basically said that Mann's graph was fraudulent in the strongest of terms, whence Mann sued Steyn for defamation. Now after 12 years of delay the case has finally come to court. You can keep up with the trial on Mark Steyn's website. Here are links:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury :: SteynOnline
. Week Two Begins :: SteynOnline
On the surface it seems that Mark has coped really well with all the pressure that he must be under. I gather he is representing himself in court, which is a very brave thing to do, although it should save him considerable costs and he is a very witty and confident speaker.
Mann has already sued another person for defaming him, scientist Tim Ball, and lost! Sadly Tim Ball has died and Mann has disobeyed the court by failing to pay Ball's costs. This time I hope to see Mann get what he deserves. It will be interesting to see if the case gets any major publicity here in the UK.
Steyn's words qualifies as hate speech.
ReplyDeleteLet's see what the court decides.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to compare you to a pedafile publicly, would you say I have a right to that kind of free speech?
ReplyDeleteYou have to look at the actual quote which was:
ReplyDelete"Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky*of climate science, except that 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."
Jerry Sandusky was the paedophile you referred to.
You might find that unpleasant, but it seems fair comment to me. Let's see how the case turns out. He did not specifically call Mann a paedophile, he said his action "could be said" to be compared with.