[amacbride]

Oh, that guy. Suing PNAS and the author of a study critical of his work is honestly quite shocking. One would hope the work would stand for itself, or at least the response should’ve been another paper rather than a lawsuit.

[strainer]

You find it shocking that he might have a valid case against them, or that he has money to waste on legal harassment ?

[archgoon]

It is thoroughly inappropriate to respond to legitimate criticism, made in good faith, published in a reputable journal, with a lawsuit.

It doesn't matter if you're right. If you're right; arguments can be made to show that your opponents are wrong (and he was in fact allowed a rebuttal letter in PNAS). Filing a lawsuit breaks any semblance of civility of discourse and dispassionate pursuit of truth; and results in everyone worse off, as the discussion has become thoroughly toxic.

It's burning down the entire house because someone disagreed with your analysis.

[strainer]

Whether it was appropriate or not depends on whether the criticism was legitimate or not. That is the legitimate purpose of legal proceedings to determine.

[wallace_f]

I guess you would be a heretic to be someone who complains that while the rich want to pay for renewable energy and can afford to live in such a Friedman-esque society in which money buys your civil liberties from the legal system--or even just protection from criticism... meanwhile cost of living, suicide rates, homelessness, civil liberties continue to deteriorate for the working class.

Edit: maybe the downvotes suggest my guess was right.