Tweet
This thread is devoted to the litigation of Michael Mann vs. the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg.
The following is a copy of the INTRODUCTION section of the Brief of Appellants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg
This case implicates nothing less than the District of Columbia’s commitment to “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” and public figures. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); see also Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 US 130, 155 (1967). Few debates are more consequential than that over the public-policy response to climate change. And underlying that debate is a scientific question: whether the Twentieth Century experienced anomalous warming, suggesting worse to come absent enormous reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or whether it was within the range of normal, historical variation in temperature, suggesting that expensive remedial measures may cause more harm than good. Plaintiff Michael Mann asserts his research reconstructing historical temperatures from measurements of tree rings, ice cores, and the like puts that question to rest and makes the case for immediate and aggressive action. Many disagree, arguing that his and other climate scientists’ statistical models are biased in favor of the catastrophic view. That criticism received substantial support from the “Climategate” scandal, which disclosed emails showing that Dr. Mann and other climate scientists used techniques that exaggerated the threat of global warming—including, most notoriously, a statistical “trick” devised by Dr. Mann to “hide the decline” in temperatures—and sought to blackball dissenting views within their field. Frustrated by Climategate’s impact on the climate change debate, Dr. Mann’s brought this lawsuit to, in his own words, “fight back against the attacks” by “groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change.”
Dr. Mann’s lawsuit is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of scientific progress and a misapplication of decades of constitutional and common law. He argues that, because his research has supposedly been “exonerated” by the government, any vigorous challenge to it is false and defamatory. But that’s not how science or the First Amendment works. Scientific progress depends on skepticism, the willingness to challenge received wisdom in search of truth. Likewise, “the basis of the First Amendment is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech, propaganda will answer propaganda, free debate of ideas will result in the wisest governmental policies.” Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 503 (1951). Thus, our progress depends on the free exchange of ideas, especially those ideas that may be unpopular or buck the “consensus” view. Mann’s belief that once a “consensus” has been reached, or a view has been endorsed by the government, any disagreement with it is an illegitimate attack unworthy of First Amendment protection contradicts the history of scientific progress from the ancient Greeks to the present and our Nation’s deeply held commitment to free expression as the means of achieving that progress.
Dr. Mann may be sincere in his calls for urgent political action to limit greenhouse gas emissions and his warnings that failure to act may spell catastrophe. But “[f]ear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Or where those fears are rational, to confirm them. In the American system, speech is how we distinguish between the two. The Court should reaffirm that principle and dismiss this case.
The following is a copy of the INTRODUCTION section of the Brief of Appellants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg
INTRODUCTION
This case implicates nothing less than the District of Columbia’s commitment to “the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials” and public figures. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); see also Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 US 130, 155 (1967). Few debates are more consequential than that over the public-policy response to climate change. And underlying that debate is a scientific question: whether the Twentieth Century experienced anomalous warming, suggesting worse to come absent enormous reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, or whether it was within the range of normal, historical variation in temperature, suggesting that expensive remedial measures may cause more harm than good. Plaintiff Michael Mann asserts his research reconstructing historical temperatures from measurements of tree rings, ice cores, and the like puts that question to rest and makes the case for immediate and aggressive action. Many disagree, arguing that his and other climate scientists’ statistical models are biased in favor of the catastrophic view. That criticism received substantial support from the “Climategate” scandal, which disclosed emails showing that Dr. Mann and other climate scientists used techniques that exaggerated the threat of global warming—including, most notoriously, a statistical “trick” devised by Dr. Mann to “hide the decline” in temperatures—and sought to blackball dissenting views within their field. Frustrated by Climategate’s impact on the climate change debate, Dr. Mann’s brought this lawsuit to, in his own words, “fight back against the attacks” by “groups seeking to discredit the case for concern over climate change.”
Dr. Mann’s lawsuit is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of scientific progress and a misapplication of decades of constitutional and common law. He argues that, because his research has supposedly been “exonerated” by the government, any vigorous challenge to it is false and defamatory. But that’s not how science or the First Amendment works. Scientific progress depends on skepticism, the willingness to challenge received wisdom in search of truth. Likewise, “the basis of the First Amendment is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech, propaganda will answer propaganda, free debate of ideas will result in the wisest governmental policies.” Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 503 (1951). Thus, our progress depends on the free exchange of ideas, especially those ideas that may be unpopular or buck the “consensus” view. Mann’s belief that once a “consensus” has been reached, or a view has been endorsed by the government, any disagreement with it is an illegitimate attack unworthy of First Amendment protection contradicts the history of scientific progress from the ancient Greeks to the present and our Nation’s deeply held commitment to free expression as the means of achieving that progress.
Dr. Mann may be sincere in his calls for urgent political action to limit greenhouse gas emissions and his warnings that failure to act may spell catastrophe. But “[f]ear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 376 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Or where those fears are rational, to confirm them. In the American system, speech is how we distinguish between the two. The Court should reaffirm that principle and dismiss this case.
Comment