Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« MIT, Library Seek Say in Aaron Swartz FOIA Suit | Main | National Intelligence GC Addresses Surveillance Programs »

July 22, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e201910459de6f970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Court Denies SLAPP Motion Against Scientist's Libel Suit:

Comments

Kenbo

This is good news. Climate scientists doing valuable research have been taking it on the chin from climate change deniers for too long. It's encouraging to see an honest and respected climate scientist like Dr. Mann stand his ground. Well done Dr. Mann!

Spamf Roming

Make sure Mann brings in BOTH tree rings that he based a thousand years of temperatures on. Also, maybe he can finally explain the lack of the medieval warming period and the little ice age. Will make interesting reading.

Dr. Horrible

"Good for the court to smack down the spin machines that are hurting the public dialog that we need to have over many serious issues."

I take it "public dialog" to you means "only people I want to hear from get to speak"?

R.C.

"Several investigations over the years cleared Mann of allegations of wrongdoing."

False. That question was not really addressed.

"...the author questioned the reliability of a Penn State investigation that cleared Mann of wrongdoing...."

Not quite. The author pointed out that the investigation really never addressed the question.

Loudney

Mann was not cleared -- he was whitewashed by a biased panel. They didn't even really ask him any questions, and none of the major critiques showing his work to be bogus were even mentioned.

MnemonicMike

Judge Natalia Combs Greene is a Clinton appointee with a liberal background. She has no background in the physical sciences.

Caerbannog666

Folks here who might be tempted to repeat the standard talking-point attacks on Dr. Mann's work would be well advised to read through the discussion thread at this link first: http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/debunking-the-hockey-stick/

Pay particular attention to John Mashey's comments in the thread.

The very last post in the thread is a "plain English" summary of what is wrong with one of the main attacks on Mann's hockey-stick. Read that one carefully as well.

DF Lickiss

Good for the court to smack down the spin machines that are hurting the public dialog that we need to have over many serious issues.

I still think AGW is unproven but that is mainly b/c we are still trying to understand an extremely complicated system. For now, imposing solutions when we don't know how the machine really operates is questionable policy IMHO. Let us proceed with the research and figure out how the machine works and then if we need a solution then let us rationally debate the solution w/o demagoguery.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements