The Supreme Court ruled that a defamation case against the magazine National Review, filed by a known proponent of “global warming,” will be allowed to continue after seven years, as reported by The Epoch Times.
The case involves Michael Mann, most famous for producing a graph that, in its depiction of an alleged spike in global temperatures in recent years, was compared to a hockey stick. After National Review accused Mann of “misconduct” and “manipulation” of data in producing the chart, Mann sued the magazine for defamation.
The magazine appealed to the court to have the case dismissed, but was denied. In their appeal, the magazine’s lawyers said that if they were to lose the case, it would set a harmful precedent for freedom of speech in political discourse as protected by the First Amendment.
Mann has a history of lies and fabrications, including when leaked emails from “the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia” suggested that Mann had participated in tampering with the results of his findings, including “the splicing together of different temperature data to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures.” Mann had also falsely claimed to be a recipient of the Nobel Prize, which was later debunked by the Nobel Committee.