You cite the words of a judge
Of course, who else is better suited to demolishing your bullshit allegation of Mann filing suit over "mocking the hockey-stick curve"?
not a scientist, a person more used to evaluating arguments among celebrities than deciding the value of opposing scientific hypotheses.
Shifting the goal posts after an own-goal isn't going to help you.
Scientists accuse each other of manipulating data all the time,
Challenging interpretation of data, methodology, etc. is not the same as allegations of fraud. Anyone with a basic understanding of either science or ethics is aware of this. You seem to lack either.
This is traditionally handled by applying the scientific method to marshal facts and test contending hypotheses. If Mann is confident of having science on his side, why should he be afraid of a lowly editorialist?
He's suing over allegations of fraud. He's done the science, it's been reviewed and corroborated, but the fraud allegations continue. Filing suit is only logical.
And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area.
And yet I doubt you pollute cosmology articles with comments about how you're "neutral on the size of the galaxy, age of the sun, properties of the Standard Model", etc.
You people have chosen to contaminate climate research with your political bullying.
You're confused - I'm not a denialist, so it's not "my people" doing that.
Now that this no longer seems to be working, you're rollling in the lawyers. Good luck with that.
The denialist side is finding it untenable to challenge the science and is now attacking the scientists. Good luck with that.
It might work for Mann too.:
Justice Emily Burke ordered the National Post, Fisher, Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, and Kevin Libin to pay Weaver $50,000 after finding that the defamation was "serious" and that the "factual foundation to the four articles was distorted or false".
"It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction," Burke wrote in her ruling. "The libel was widely published by at least one high profile journalist and two others."