A federal appeals court ruled that statements about climate scientist Michael Mann were potentially libelous. The judge wrote that the statements attacked “the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side…a tactic [used] to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming.” One commentator said that Mann was the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.” Sandusky is the former Penn State football coach currently serving a long prison sentence for sexually assaulting children. (The Hill, December 22, 2016, by Timothy Cama)
Mann brought the suit against Rand Simberg for statements for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mark Steyn for his comments in the National Review. Mann has been under attack by conservatives for his research on tree ring records leading to a graph that showed a spike in world temperatures at the end of the 20th century. Steyn and Simberg disseminated statements comparing Sandusky, the child molester, with Mann who molests and distorts data. Mann’s graph has been validated by peer-reviewed studies. (BuzzFeed News, December 22, 2016, by Zoe Tillman)