We've got a verdict today and it's bizarre. In fact we think it's pretty insane. We'll break it down for you, but first this is what the jury decided.

So these are the statements that the jury found were defamatory.

First of all, from Rand Simburg's blog post,

this statement was found to be defamatory.

We saw what the university administration this statement was found to be defamatory.

We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes

and even let them continue rather than expose them.

Should we suppose in light of what we now know they would do any

less to hide the academic and scientific misconduct was so much at stake? So

that apparently was defamatory. The second statement they found from Rans Simburg to be defamatory was, and you read it there.

Man could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children

he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

So just to remind you, Jerry Sandusky was the football coach at Penn State who went to prison for molesting children. The president,

Graham Spannier of Penn State, went to prison for facilitating that and covering up.

So that's what Ron Simberg was referring to when he talked about covering up reports and covering up investigations.

Then the jury also found two parts of Mark Stein's blog post defamatory. They found first Stein

re-quoted Simburg's quote from the passage above, man could be said to be

the Jerry Sandusky of climate change, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested

and tortured data in the service of politicized science that equative of dire economic consequences

for the nation and planets.

So that is actually Ran Simburg's quote but Mark

re-quoted it in his piece and by the way he also put the context then I

...