Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg are being sued for defamation by Michael Mann.
Michael Mann is a professor of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania.
Michael Mann, a professor of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, is suing right-wing author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg for defamation. The trial in D.C. Superior Court involves posts from both individuals where they called Mann's research fraudulent.
Michael Mann is a professor of Earth and Environmental Science at University of Pennsylvania.
The trial in D.C. Superior Court involves posts from right wing author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg.
Steyn called Mann's research fraudulent.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the case of Michael Mann as if he was being sued for defamation when in reality he is suing two individuals for making false statements about him. Secondly, the article implies that Mann's graph became a target because it helped make global warming accessible to a wide audience and therefore made it more vulnerable to attacks from climate deniers. However, this is not entirely accurate as Mann's graph was also targeted by groups funded by the fossil fuel industry who rejected climate science. The article also fails to disclose that Penn State found no evidence of scientific misconduct against Mann in their investigation into his research.
The article fails to disclose that Penn State found no evidence of scientific misconduct against Mann in their investigation into his research.
The article presents Michael Mann's case as if he is being sued for defamation when in reality, he is suing two individuals for making false statements about him. This deceptive presentation implies that the lawsuit was brought by someone who had been wronged by Mann and not the other way around.
The article suggests that Michael Mann's graph became a target because it helped make global warming accessible to a wide audience, which made it more vulnerable to attacks from climate deniers. However, this is only partially true as the graph was also targeted by groups funded by the fossil fuel industry who rejected climate science.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article discusses the trial of a climate scientist named Michael Mann who is suing two individuals for defamation. The author argues that attacks on scientists are proliferating and there is no good way to respond. The article also mentions other scientists who have faced similar attacks in the past, including those from the federal government during Donald Trump's presidency. Additionally, it discusses how social media companies can encourage the spread of scientific misinformation.
The trial involves posts from right wing author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the trial of a climate scientist who is suing two individuals for defamation. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes one side as extreme or unreasonable by comparing the plaintiff to a convicted child sex abuser. This type of comparison is highly biased and not supported by evidence.
The so-called "hockey stick graph" was successful in helping the public understand the urgency of global warming, and that made it a target.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Julia Simon has a conflict of interest on the topic of Michael Mann as she is reporting for National Review which is funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an organization that has been critical of climate science and Mann's work. Additionally, Kert Davies who was hired by CEI to discredit Mann's research also appears in this article.
National Review is a conservative news outlet that has been critical of climate science and Michael Mann's work.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Julia Simon has a conflict of interest on the topics of Michael Mann and climate science as she is reporting for National Review which is known to be critical of climate change. Additionally, Peter Hotez who was quoted in the article also has a conflict of interest with Kert Davies who was accused by him in 2018.
Julia Simon reports on Michael Mann's defamation lawsuit against National Review for calling his work 'fraudulent'.
Peter Hotez, an expert quoted in the article, has a conflict of interest with Kert Davies who was accused by him in 2018.
Twelve years ago, a right-wing blogger published a post comparing a respected climate scientist to an infamous child molester.
Last week, Rand Simberg took the stand in a defamation suit brought against him by the scientist he targeted, University of Pennsylvania researcher Michael Mann.
Conservative blogger Mark Steyn is his co-defendant at the trial.
Accuracy
Taking the stand on Tuesday morning, two weeks into the trial, Simberg seemed to bristle as John Williams sought to establish Simberg to the jury as a misinformed climate denier.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Mann's work was fraudulent without providing any proof. This statement is a lie by omission as there are no scientific studies or evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the author attacks Mann's research on the hockey stick graph and calls it controversial without disclosing that it has been widely accepted in climate science for decades. The article also attempts to discredit Mann's work by associating him with a child molester, which is not true and serves no purpose other than to tarnish his reputation. Lastly, the author quotes Simberg calling Mann a liar and fraud without providing any context or evidence to support this claim.
The article claims that Mann's work was fraudulent without providing any proof.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the opinions and actions of others without providing any evidence or reasoning for their own position. For example, the author mentions that Mann's work was attacked by Simberg as fraudulent before 2012, but does not provide any proof or explanation for this claim.
The tall, silver haired attorney drew the jury’s attention to Simberg’s attempts to discredit Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph. Co-authored by Mann and two other colleagues in the late 1990s, the graph shows that global temperatures increased dramatically during the 20th century.
Simberg protested that “no one accused Mann of falsification or fraud,” Williams noted. In his own deposition in the case three years earlier, Simberg had said that Mann was “deceitful” and a “fraud.”
Simberg also quizzed on other statements castigating climate scientists and activists. These included a 2010 post to CoolPeople in which he called for Mann’s research funding to be cut, and for climate scientists to be “drummed out of their so-called profession.”
In another blog post around the same time, Simberg had described former vice president Al Gore's 2006 documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” as “hysterical, lying propaganda.”
In 2017, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released a report that exonerated Mann of any wrongdoing one of two independent investigations spurred by 2009’s ⰴClimategate,ⰴ and the IPCC. Simberg tried to maintain that he had not accused Mann of scientific misconduct back in 2012, although his blog post at the time charged the scientist with ⟖data manipulation, and claimed the NSF report was a 쎩whitewash.쎩
Simberg took the stand again and his attorney, Victoria Weatherford, asked, Simberg responded, I’m sure I can think of other places I'd rather be. U 27D6Weatherford responded,
U 27D6We all can, continuing a defense team tactic of reminding the jury members how much of their time has been taken up by a trial it has tried to portray as unnecessary.
Simberg testified that he knew nothing about the report’s author. U 27D6I didn't have to know who it was because all high-level government officials are politicians, Simberg testified.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Michael Mann and his reputation. The author uses language that dehumanizes Rand Simberg by comparing him to a child molester. The author also quotes from previous blog posts where Simberg attacked Mann's work without providing any proof, which shows bias against Mann.
In another blog post around the same time, Simberg had described former vice president Al Gore’s 2006 documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” as “hysterical, lying propaganda.
In the post, Simberg also stated that children shouldn't watch the film because it scared a whole generation of people to not want to have kids.
Simberg protested that
no one accused Mann of falsification or fraud,
Williams noted that in his own deposition in the case three years earlier, Simberg had said that Mann was deceitful and a fraud.
Simberg tried to maintain that he had not accused Mann of scientific misconduct back in 2012, although his blog post at the time charged the scientist with “data manipulation,” and claimed the NSF report was a “whitewash.
Williams noted that in his deposition, Simberg allowed that the NSF’s findings held some truth, but considered his own judgment better than that of the inspector general who wrote the report, who he dismissed as a politician.
The tall, silver haired attorney drew the jury’s attention to Simberg’s attempts to discredit Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Diane Bernard has a conflict of interest on the topic of climate change as she is reporting on a defamation trial involving Michael Mann and Rand Simberg. She also has personal relationships with both men.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Diane Bernard has a conflict of interest on the topic of climate change as she is reporting on a defamation trial involving Michael Mann and Rand Simberg. She also has a personal relationship with Mark Steyn who is mentioned in the article.
Michael Mann is a professor of Earth and Environmental Science at University of Pennsylvania.
The trial in D.C. Superior Court involves posts from right wing author Mark Steyn and policy analyst Rand Simberg.
Steyn called Mann's research fraudulent.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the case of Michael Mann as if he was being sued for defamation when in reality he is suing two individuals for making false statements about him. Secondly, the article implies that Mann's graph became a target because it helped make global warming accessible to a wide audience and that his research was under attack from groups funded by the fossil fuel industry. However, this is not entirely accurate as Penn State found no evidence of scientific misconduct in their investigation into Mann's work. Lastly, the article presents Steyn's comparison of Mann to Sandusky as if it were a fact when in reality it was an opinion expressed by Simberg and Steyn.
Steyn compared Mann to Sandusky as if it were an objective fact when Simberg and Steyn expressed this opinion.
The article implies that Michael Mann is being sued for defamation when he is actually suing two individuals for making false statements about him.
The article presents the hockey stick graph as if it became a target because of its success in helping make global warming accessible to a wide audience, but Penn State found no evidence of scientific misconduct in their investigation into Mann's work.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of experts without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing attacks on climate science and scientists as a form of harassment and intimidation.
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of experts without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing attacks on climate science and scientists as a form of harassment and intimidation.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the trial of a famous climate scientist who is suing two individuals for defamation. The defendants made statements that were critical of the plaintiff's work and compared him to a convicted child molester. These statements are clearly biased and demonstrate an attempt to discredit the plaintiff based on his scientific research rather than evaluating it objectively.
Steyn called Mann's research fraudulent.
The defendants, Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, made statements that were critical of Michael Mann's work and compared him to a convicted child molester.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Michael Mann and Peter Hotez. The author is also biased against attacks on scientists.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of defamation lawsuits as they mention attacks on scientists in their article.
