Julia Simon reports via NPR: In a Washington, D.C., courtroom, a high-stakes case for climate science is coming to an end this week. One of the world's most prominent climate scientists has sued a right-wing author and policy analyst for defamation. Peter Hotez, professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine, said the incident comes at a time when attacks on scientists are surging. Despite the ever-increasing amount of misinformation about scientists and their work, Hotez says scientists have yet to find a good way to respond. “We're groping along because this is unprecedented and there's no roadmap,” he says. The climate scientist at the center of this trial is Michael Mann. The University of Pennsylvania professor of earth and environmental science has become famous for helping create some of the most accessible and consequential graphs in the history of climate science. First published in the late 1990s, this graph shows relatively stable global temperatures over thousands of years. Then, when humans started burning large amounts of coal and oil, it rose sharply. Mann's graph looks like a hockey stick on its side with the blade sticking straight up. The so-called “hockey stick graph” was successful in convincing the public of the urgency of global warming, and it targeted it, said the director of special research at the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit organization for climate responsibility. Kurt Davis says. “It became such a powerful image that we were under attack from the beginning,” he says.
The attacks were carried out by groups that reject climate science, some of which are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Amid these attacks, including the hacking of Mann and other scientists' emails by unknown hackers, Penn State University, where Mann worked at the time, began an investigation into Mann's work. Penn State University and the National Science Foundation found no evidence of scientific misconduct. But policy analysts and writers say they are not convinced. The case in Washington, D.C. Superior Court includes posts by right-wing author Mark Stein and policy analyst Rand Shinberg. In an online post, Shinberg likened Mann to former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, a convicted child molester. Schinberg wrote that Mann was “the Sandusky of climate science” and that Mann “abused and tortured the data” (PDF). Mr. Stein claimed that Mr. Mann's research was fraudulent. Mann sued the two for defamation. Mann also sued the post's publishers, National Review and the Institute for Competitive Enterprise, but a court ruled in 2021 that the publishers were not liable.
Mann claimed in court that he had lost funding and research opportunities. Stein said in court that if Penn State President Graham Spanier covers up child sexual assault, why doesn't he also cover up Mann's science? The science in question used ice cores and tree rings to estimate Earth's past temperatures. “If Graham Spanier is willing to cover up child rape week after week after week after year after year after year, why is he not at all averse to covering up a little hanky panky with tree rings and ice cores? ” Mr. Stein asked the court. Mann and Stein declined to speak to NPR during the ongoing trial. Victoria Weatherford, one of Simberg's lawyers, said “incitement and defamation are not the same thing” and that her client is allowed to express his opinion even if it is wrong. said. Weatherford told NPR, “No matter how offensive, unpleasant, or passionate the statement may be, if the person making the statement believes it to be true, it is acceptable to make a statement to a public figure.” “If someone does, that speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.”
