Slashdot Mirror
Michael Mann Defamation Suit Against National Review Writer to Proceed
From Ars Technica comes this update in the defamation case filed by climate researcher Michael Mann against political commentator Mark Steyn of National Review magazine, who rhetorically compared Mann to Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky and accused him of publishing intentionally misleading research results.
"The defendants tried to get it dismissed under the District of Columbia's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) statute, which attempts to keep people from being silenced by frivolous lawsuits. The judge hearing the case denied the attempt and then promptly retired; Mann next amended his complaint, leading an appeals court to send the whole thing back to a new trial judge. Now the new judge has denied the SLAPP attempt yet again. In a decision released late last week (and hosted by defendant Mark Steyn), the judge recognizes that the comparison to a child molester is part of the "opinions and rhetorical hyperbole" that are protected speech when used against public figures like Mann. However, the accompanying accusations of fraud are not exempt:"
I'm just going to throw out as somebody who's been stuck doing some literature surveys for grad school. The more research papers I read, especially in areas that I know a fair bit about, the less peer reviewed means. Between people claiming 10 year battery life on a D-cell and microwave links being used as reliable weather monitors, the amount of bullshit published in peer reviewed scientific journals is absolutely astonishing. I find a typical paper has about 10% worth while, and 90% either worthless, poor assumptions or general misunderstanding of the topic. I read one where they kept on talking about I2C temperature sensors like the fact that I2C meant something about the quality of the sensor for christs sake.