Today marked the latest filing in a defamation lawsuit brought by climate science alarmist Michael Mann against CEI, National Review, and scholar Rand Simberg. CEI has fought back against Mann’s lawsuit by moving to dismiss the case under the District of Columbia’s 2011 Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, or “Anti-SLAPP,” Act, which protects the public’s right to engage in advocacy on issues of public interest.
Mann filed his lawsuit in October, 2012, in reaction to a July 13 CEI OpenMarket blog post by Simberg comparing Penn State’s Climategate investigation of Mann to the school's initially shoddy investigation of the former, infamous football coach Jerry Sandusky. CEI argues the blog post was Simberg’s constitutionally protected opinion, especially given its open reliance on publicly available sources. This, coupled with Mann’s status as a highly outspoken public figure in the global warming controversy, places the blog post at the core of protected free speech.
CEI’s filing today responds to Mann’s opposition to CEI’S Anti-SLAPP motion.
CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman commented on today’s response to the Mann lawsuit.
As our reply demonstrates, while Mann paints himself as a reluctant warrior in the global warming debate, he’s quick to fling epithets at his critics. Mann characterizes his opponents and their positions, variously, as “pure scientific fraud,” “bogus,” “hired assassin,” “shills,” “crimes against humanity,” and the ever-useful smear of “denier.” The professor claims that he’s been exonerated by numerous investigations, but those reports raise more questions than they answer. And his view of First Amendment freedoms is so incorrect that, in addition to the Nobel Prize he wrongly thinks he won, he may now end up with a Pulitzer — but it won’t be for nonfiction.
The next step in the lawsuit may be a court hearing.
CEI and Rand Simberg are represented in the action by the firm of Baker Hostetler.
> View background on the case