Michael Mann Wins Court Decision [Greg Laden's Blog]

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.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2hLwLS8

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.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2hLwLS8