http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/...es-libel-suit/
Predictions? :o
Printable View
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/...es-libel-suit/
Predictions? :o
So Mann's trying to silence his critics through libel suit? Gotta love the left, if you can't beat them sue em.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You're like that child molester is indeed an important 'skeptical' argument against Global Warming. It's an outrage that such a valid claim is silenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Since you didn't read the article and don't understand science or law please see the Cliff Notes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
But the more interesting aspect of the suit comes in the factual nature of claims that Mann's work is fraudulent. The CEI and National Review may believe these claims have merit, but Mann's lawyers argue there's no excuse for believing that at this point: "In response to these accusations, academic institutions and governmental entities alike, including the US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann's work, and found the allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every such investigation—and every replication of Dr. Mann's work—has concluded that Dr. Mann's research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented."
Its an analogy. In no way was he being accused of being a child molester. The idea that insults should be silenced is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Lewk is the Sandusky of intelligent thought.
Guess what, I'm not gonna sue you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
He's a public persona. Insults are part of the game (no one is directly accusing him of pedophilia). I doubt he wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
No, it's anal logic. The two are easily confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
You're right:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Tadah! The wonders of being able to readQuote:
But the more interesting aspect of the suit comes in the factual nature of claims that Mann's work is fraudulent. The CEI and National Review may believe these claims have merit, but Mann's lawyers argue there's no excuse for believing that at this point: "In response to these accusations, academic institutions and governmental entities alike, including the US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann's work, and found the allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every such investigation—and every replication of Dr. Mann's work—has concluded that Dr. Mann's research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented."
Still a borderline case. They can easily argue that they believe the work is fraudulent. To prove libel, you have to show the person knowingly lied.
It may be difficult to prove actual malice but there's a chance you'll force a court to rule on whether or not their allegations are false claims about facts rather than merely being matters of opinion. Even if that doesn't lead to damages being awarded, eg. after proving their likely negligent approach to factual claims, it may end up affirming the factual aspects of his work in a court of law. That's a big deal. It's kinda like when a court affirms the theory of evolution and dismisses intelligent design.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It'd be fun if the uni went after these scumbags too but I guess that uni has enough on its plate.
That's too narrow, Loki. You can also be sued for libel if you knew that your argument would cause harm and your statement turned out to be untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Doesn't matter what you believe - if your opinion is influential and you cause a person harm through an untrue statement, then you will face consequences. That's why you can't run around in your neighbourhood, declaiming someone as a child molester without evidence to the contrary, even if you believe it to be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice
It matters very much what you believe.
Then you have an idiotic system of justice. But we already established that.
I thought everyone knew that there are few countries in the world where it's more difficult to prove libel against a public person than in the US. :noob:
Never going to happen. It makes the courts a kind of arbiter as to what is and is not legitimately science, a position they are well aware they don't have the knowledge to handle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'd like to point out the case of Italy. You never know what a court's judge feels knowledgable about.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I mean, just take this ridiculous notion of "a jury of your peers". You take a highly technical problem (patents) and you let amateurs decide over that, who mostly haven't the faintest of clues (and if they actually have a clue, they're voted out!). Which means that your system actually thrives on ignorance!
And with that in mind, do you actually think a judge won't feel that he's able to vote on some matter?
Judges tend to be more educated than the average juror, and some don't let the fact that they are judges go to their head and think they know everything.
But, yer right I'm that it is not a perfect check.
Judges that deal with patents tend to specialize in patent law...Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Right. And judges who deal with claims of scientific fraud tend to specialize in whatever area of science is affected? Give me a break.
Perhaps this is why judges don't deal with claims of scientific fraud...
I can't recall any legal cases, I know a few that ended up on the err 'court' of the university itself, which was composed of scientists and uni board members, who are knowledgeable, and the arguments were supported by scientists including nobel prize winners in that case.
But isn't that what he's being accused of? And why a judge will have to deal with it, contrary to your statement here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The panda has its furry fingers crossed :oQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You're assuming this lawsuit will get to trial and will be decided on the basis of the quality of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
It'll be hella funny if they end up being forced to claim that their retarded position is in fact not factual but simply an opinion (one that is, of course, wrong).
Has anyone read the piece that's caused the lawsuit? It's ridiculous to sue over someone referencing a random blog post that makes a cogent -- albeit sorta silly/possibly over-the-top-- comparison.
I'm more surprised a lawyer took this case. He must not be working on contingency.
Keep in mind that the lawsuit is against a separate publication for posting a portion of this blog post above.Quote:
So it turns out that Penn State has covered up wrongdoing by one of its employees to avoid bad publicity.
But I’m not talking about the appalling behavior uncovered this week by the Freeh report. No, I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since.
To review, when the emails and computer models were leaked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia two and a half years ago, many of the luminaries of the “climate science” community were shown to have been behaving in a most unscientific manner. Among them were Michael Mann, Professor of Meteorology at Penn State, whom the emails revealed had been engaging in data manipulation to keep the blade on his famous hockey-stick graph, which had become an icon for those determined to reduce human carbon emissions by any means necessary.
As a result, in November of 2009, the university issued a press release that it was going to undertake its own investigation, independently of one that had been launched by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in response to a demand from Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R- N.Y.). In July of the next year, the panel set up to investigate declared him innocent of any wrongdoing:
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/13...nhappy-valley/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Quote:
But one sentence was considered so outrageous that it was later removed by the blog's editor: "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky [a child molester] of climate science, except that 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."