On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take a case by Penn State’s Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist who allegedly skewed data, with his “hockey stick” graph, which the National Review reported on as “Climategate.”
The National Review questioned Penn State’s findings, accusing the school of whitewash, and Mann of scientific fraud. Writers for the magazine likened Mann to “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” a reference to the then-recently convicted serial pedophile and former football coach at Penn State.
“Instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” Mark Steyn wrote, quoting the work of a blogger at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, another party to the suit.
Justice Alito, who dissented on the court’s decision, wrote, “The petition in this case presents questions that go to the very heart of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of the press: the protection afforded to journalists and others who use harsh language in criticizing opposing advocacy on one of the most important public issues of the day.” He added, “If the Court is serious about protecting freedom of expression, we should grant review.”
Mann’s case will continue through D.C.’s equivalent of a state court, despite the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute doing nothing wrong.