Revenge can be Sweet - 297

 "Scientists everywhere scored a major victory on Thursday…" was one headline. "Famed climate scientist wins million-dollar verdict against right-wing bloggers," said another. "Embattled Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins 1 Million in Defamation Lawsuit." was the title of the Scientific American Article.

Michael Mann is one of the world's most honored and respected climate scientists. He and his team are the ones who, back in 1999, did the detailed analysis of earth systems to calculate and graph the earth's warming. The graph they created looks like a hockey stick lying on the ground with its blade sticking up, graphically depicting our rapidly warming world.

In the legitimate science world, all work is respectfully challenged. It is called peer review. To confirm Dr Mann's accuracy, prove him wrong, or add more detail to his analysis, scientists have completed at least two dozen large-scale reconstructions. All reconstructions have proven Michael Mann and his team correct.

Alternately, in the pseudo-scientific alternate world of right-wing bloggers, truth is not a consideration. Michael Mann has faced a barrage of unfounded and unprincipled accusations in this alternate universe.

Michael Mann was also attacked at the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change. This attack, though painful, has played to Dr Mann's advantage both for his career and in the recent trial. This attack, again by right wing bloggers, was fueled by email hacks of Mann and other climate scientists. It was by someone who, even to this day, remains unknown. The hacker, from thousands of stolen emails, picked and chose a phrase here and there to make it look like Mann and his fellow climate scientists were up to no good. For rational people, the attacks from an unknown source using cherry-picked stolen data were weak and never should have gotten the attention they did. The term used to describe the drama created by this misinformation was called "Climategate." 

Unfortunately, the scurrilous accusations by right-wing bloggers took the summit off track, and little was accomplished. Of course, this was the hacker’s goal.

On the other hand, the science world of responsible institutions showed reasonableness. Eight institutions* formed eight independent investigative committees to get to the bottom of it all. Were Michael Mann and colleagues guilty of bad science, or was this mess a manufactured controversy? It turns out it was ALL manufactured. Michael Mann and colleagues were wholly exonerated of wrongdoing or conducting poor science.

In the climate firefight, a couple of right-wing flame throwers attempted to incinerate Michael Mann's reputation. These two were Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn. They were given column space in the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They accused Mann of manipulating and abusing data. They even metaphorically compared Michael Mann to the pedophile Jerry Sandusky, who manipulated and abused young boys.

Despite Steyn and Simberg's inaccurate and inflammatory writings, Michael Mann's attorneys had a problem. In a civil trial, the lawyers must prove Michael Mann had suffered economically because of the false and malicious statements. That was hard to do because Michael Mann's stature in the scientific world shot up after the 24 hockey stick reconstructions and the summit vindications.

Luckily for the lawyers, Mann could prove that during his short time under scrutiny, he lost funding for one grant and had been excluded from at least one research collaboration due to Steyn and Simberg.

But it is hard to win a defamation case. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees free speech. Lying can be protected free speech. This time, it was not so free for Steyn and Simberg.

I love the jury's findings. They found that Steyn and Simberg had made false statements. They said Mann must be compensated for damages: 1 dollar each, or two bucks total. But, because the false statements by Steyn and Simbeck were made with "maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance, or deliberate intent to harm." Steyn and Simberg are required to pay over a million dollars in punitive damages. Sweet!

Is this a turnaround for science? On top of my hundreds of science magazines is one that keeps reminding me of why I work so hard. It is the March 2015 National Geographic magazine. Its title is "The War on Science". 

Scientists have been under assault by the pseudo-science world of social media and right-wing attack artists for a long time. It has been an uneven battle as scientists have neither the money nor the time to defend themselves from corporate-funded law firms.

In response to these repeated ugly and unjustified attacks on scientists, the organization, "Climate Science Legal Defense Fund," was formed in 2011. If you want to defend science, go to their website. It is time we defend those who work hard to serve us.

UK investigative organizations: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Independent Climate Change Email Review, International Science Assessment Panel

US investigative organizations: Pennsylvania State University (US), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce.