Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post
Layzej writes A leading Canadian climate scientist has been awarded $50,000 in a defamation suit against The National Post newspaper. Andrew Weaver sued the Post over four articles published between December 2009 and February 2010. The articles contain "grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet," and they "poison" the debate over climate change, Weaver asserted in a statement at the time the suit was filed. The judge agreed, concluding "the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts. As evident from the testimony of the defendants, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts."
This is the first of several law suits launched by climate scientists against journalists who have published alleged libels and falsehoods. Climate scientist Ben Santer suggests the following explanation for these types of defamations: "if you can't attack the underlying science, you go after the scientist."
This is the first of several law suits launched by climate scientists against journalists who have published alleged libels and falsehoods. Climate scientist Ben Santer suggests the following explanation for these types of defamations: "if you can't attack the underlying science, you go after the scientist."
WTF is the National Post?
Anyway the people that need to be sued over climate change are the fossil fuel companies.
The denialists do not understand science, but they damn well do understand money and lawyers. It's a pity that in this day and age we have to cater to those who are either still thinking in the stone age, or have pecuniary interests in reality being suppressed, but when the lies they spout are easily provable, it's time to see you in court, denialists, not to prove or disprove the science, but to expose your duplicity.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Unfortunately the damage is already done. The general public has sopped up the National Post's bullshit and lies, and now considers that reeking pile of crap to be true.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
In the new World, with a few exceptions, information is freely available to an average World citizen. It would be difficult to bottleneck the pipeline without appearing to be despotic these days.
What's a person or group with an agenda to do? Flood the places people develop their opinions with facts that are friendlier to their goals. Shitty, clever, malevolent bastards.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I suppose that once you allow scientists to stand trial for their inability to predict earthquakes, the slippery slope logic kicks in. It seems witches have legal status as do witch hunts.
Since this occurred in Canaduh, can we conclude that no animals were harmed in the fictional display of logic?
Become a president.
I don't know who this rag is, or who this scientist is. But when you turn to the courts to cut off dissent, it makes me doubt the validity of what you are saying.
I thought this was settled science. Now not only are you trying to tell us that there is debate but also you're making money off of it? What kind of climate scientist are you, anyway?
No, there's no debate.
Lies are something different.
You're upping the bid to lawsuits. You must realize that a the court process can be a painful and expensive procedure even for the innocent.
Consider that these same scientists could be sucked into serial lawsuits regarding undisclosed emails, methodology of data filtration/smoothing, disclosure of raw unmodified data which in some cases doesn't exist anymore, detailed explanations of climate models, etc.
Look... you really don't want to open this book. The legal system especially in the US has been successfully used as a bludgeon against people for over a generation. You open this door and lawyers are going to be knocking on the doors of both sides begging them to let their law firm represent them in one lawsuit or another.
Turn on American TV and you'll see all sorts of ads for various lawyers... they say "SUE YOUR BOSS!"... they'll say "were you injured EVER, sue the other guy! FUCK HIM!" They'll say, did you ever use this product? Call us so we can send you a check for 2 dollars, your share of a class action lawsuit that netted our firm a hundred million dollars!" They'll say "Are you the member of any politically advantageous minority? Black, Hispanic, female, gay, transgender? Call us and we'll help you sue people for being bigots!"
And some bright spark thought it would be a good idea to bring the trial lawyers into this shit storm? Okay. *gets more popcorn*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I guess you're not very well informed about the world... but the major Meteorology and Climatology groups have announced that 2014 has been the HOTTEST year on record. The Earth's climate is still warming.
... I'm guessing you actually did know that but, like a typical climate change "skeptic", you decided to lie about it anyway.
The judge agreed, concluding "the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts. As evident from the testimony of the defendants, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts."
And now that is sorted out, just like when Dr. Andrew Wakefield was discredited for his fraudulent research that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine caused autism, rational thinking can now prevail and we can all get back to ... oh wait.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
funnily enough.
I recreated a graph very similar to that
and then proceeded to debunk it myself as pure statistical noise. mostly caused by a lack of polar temperature stations before the 1950s
"Settled Science"? Is that some new religion? It certainly has little in common with the falsifiable research basis of the science I used in school..
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
OF course there's a debate! There are gaps in the science that scientists refuse to acknowledge!
Some celebrity told me that AGW causes autism, and I for one won't stand for it!
Well, to be fair he did become president, but it was stolen away from him.
Introduction of the lawsuit as an element of the scientific method is underway in the Land of the Formerly Free also. Michael Mann has sued columnist Mark Steyn for mocking the hockey-stick curve. I'm looking forward to passage of an amendment to the square-cube law that will allow a concrete block to fly.
For the record, I'm neutral on climate. I trust the scientific method to come up with the truth. Greens, go ahead and force us to "believe" (another newly introduced element of the scientific method) in apocalyptic warming. Just don't get in our way when we build the new reactor fleet it will take to replace fossil fuels.
Both brook no dissent, both have used the courts to silence critics, or at least to embroil them in interminable legal battles, and both seem curiously lacking of any sense of humor.
Ha. Sense of humor. Right. Because denialists are just plucky comedians cracking jokes about those silly 'warmists'.
Nothing like a little slander by association, eh.
At least in the UK, the discrediting of Andrew Wakefield does seem to have worked. MMR vaccination rates have recovered, and are now at their highest ever level. Of course some people still believe him or have other reasons to continue the fraud, but the decisive judgments and associated publicity have changed public opinion back.
I knew when I clicked on "Read Comments" that some of them would be stupid enough to make my head explode.
If you can't refute the facts such as we haven't had any global warming in 18+ years, you sue them into oblivion to shut them up.
He has a carbon exchange set up in Europe. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/ So now you can pay carbon taxes directly to him! He is saving the earth and not motivated by taxing people for using energy(something they can not avoid). Pay Al Gore extortion money because he made a film that is not scientifically accurate.
Orthodoxy of any sort is inherently joke-worthy, even if the orthodoxy is correct in its tenets.
Hottest by 0.02C (Globally) with an error possibility of about 0.1C.
Also the only truly global data sets (satellites) do not rank it as the hottest.
And finally, with a temperature difference of barely 0.05 on average for the last 18 years, the warming is basically nonexistent.
"denialists" indeed. You fucking idiot.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
And here are some other 'denialists' to scare you:
www.nazigassings.com
It's settled in the same way that it is settled that gravity is a universally attractive force. There's lots we don't understand about how gravity works, especially at the extreme cases, but you don't hear anybody calling it a religion.
Also the only truly global data sets (satellites) do not rank it as the hottest.
Satellites don't measure surface temperature. They may be truly global, but they aren't particularly accurate.
we will have successivly replace freedom
This shit is barely readable pap and gets modded up? I weep.
I just have too many anti-vaxxers to yell at today.
That only works if you ignore the ocean. Word of advice: never ignore the ocean.
Could you clarify your comment? Are you trying to say that the newspaper was promoting good science? Who is the Church of Environmentalism?
Open debate does not include the fallacy of ad hominem. It does not include defmation. In fact ad hominem and defamation are attempt to torpedoe the open debate and attempt to deflect the thematic away from science toward the persona of the people doing the debate. If you value open debate then you value stopping ad hominem and defemation.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Not really the same thing. Gravity's effects are well known but the causes are not understood, yet you don't see masses of people pretending to understand it demanding that obscene amounts of money be spent in an effort to counter the effects. Then again, if that were the case, we might have flying cars by now or easy access to outer space.
Well, to be fair he did become president, but it was stolen away from him.
Those damn voters, stealing the Presidency away from him by not voting for him!
No, the SCOTUS did that. The most disgraceful overreach of the SC in its history.
Bwhahahahaha, you think satellites are accurate thermometers!!! Next you'll tell me that science shouldn't use models because they are inaccurate and cannot be verified!!! And all the while, you'll have no inkling that you are in a slow motion Dunning-Kruger freak show.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Orthodoxy of any sort is inherently joke-worthy, even if the orthodoxy is correct in its tenets.
That's no more an excuse to imply that climate scientists are 'Teh Islamists", than it is to imply that deniers are pedophiles.
Both are fucking ridiculous things to say.
Fighting climate change does not require much of money at GDP scales. What is DOES require is a bunch of industries either reduce profits or radically change processes. Disruption is always a dice-roll, so the most successful capitalists in a post-carbon world will most likely be a different bunch than the current ones, but the economy as a whole doesn't need to take a bath.
Al Gore, the Sierra Club, and various other interests that push global warming and environmentalism where belief takes precedence over facts and science.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Well, I'm neutral about neutrons, fairly positive for protons, but highly negative about electrons. I get just sick over germs and am a bit attracted to gravity, but just explode if introduced to someone who's ideas are too petty. (Anti-matter.)
I'm shocked at times over the abundance of electromagnetism and find astrophysics rarely smashing, while thermodynamics leaves me lukewarm. I'm still all tangled up over string theory and hot then cold on Global Warming.
My ideas on evolution change over time but my religious ideas are absolutely static. Psychology is just nuts. I'm a bit wish-washy on politics -- or is it the other way? -- but terrorism just makes me blow my stack. I'm not sure I even believe in metaphysics while philosophy just seems to be all talk, and the occult really gives me the creeps. (Spirits belong in their bottles, not evaporated and floating around in the air.)
I first started thinking about the Big Bang, but finally, the expected Big Crunch far, far in the future leaves me
PS -- Oh, and I'm Cuckoo for Cooko-Puffs!
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Florida law had clear procedures in place for the 2000 election situation, and the states-rights loving national GOP stepped in to make sure that the state's laws were not followed.
I just LOVE hypocrisy...
And the idiot political hack they had do the dirty work in FL (Katherine Harris, FL Secretary of State and G W Bush Campaign Co-Chair in FL) turned out to be soooooo looney even the GOP ran away from her.
Hey, Genius: when Exxon Mobil starts making public statements about planning based on a carbon tax (which cap and trade laws about NOx and SOx have already proved can work), then it's time to start listening to the AGW-proving scientists because the largest fossil oil shills (Exxon Mobil) have CHANGED SIDES.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/jan/10/exxon-mobil-carbon-tax
The world's biggest oil company, Exxon Mobil, has softened its hardline position on climate change by throwing its weight behind a tax on carbon emissions.
In a significant shift in stance, Exxon's chief executive, Rex Tillerson, told an audience in Washington that he considered a tax to be a fairer route to curbing emissions than a cap-and-trade system of pollution allocations.
"As a businessman it is hard to speak favourably about any new tax," said Tillerson. "But a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, a more transparent and a more effective approach."
Until recently, Exxon was reluctant even to concede that greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for global warming. The company has faced mounting pressure over its environmental policies, culminating in a shareholder rebellion at its annual meeting last year led by members of the oil-rich Rockefeller family.
In his speech, Tillerson suggested that a combination of greater efficiency, new sources of energy and curbs in demand were needed in a "multidimensional approach" to meeting challenges in policy.
"A carbon tax is also the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions - from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers," he said.
Do you have examples where Al Gore and the Sierra club are promoting belief over science?
Sun 2/08/2015 8:47 am. And that's the way science works! You sue the guy you disagree with, and make his articles and even *name* disappear from the internet. Kuel....
Phantom, you could be the ONLY poster on this website who will admit when he is wrong, will not double down on the derp, and will take his berating without being a total assburger about it. I applaud your self restraint and humility.
Exxon-Mobil's embrace/support of a carbon tax on their products is likely nothing more nor nothing less than a simple concession that in no way diminishes their profits (as it will be a pass-thru tax, paid for by customers) and once taxed, will be free, nay, encouraged to sell as much oil as possible to generate profits for government.
That's what happened to so-called 'cancer sticks', AKA cigarettes - why the taxes on cigarettes are now earmarked for children's health care so "Light up! For the children..."
Ken
An Australian "journalist" that continually distorts the facts about climate change ...
ROFL you say they aren't accurate, but they are more accurate than the land based data sets because the data hasn't be tweaked six ways from Sunday to make things appear warmer.
He went after an obscure Canadian newspaper and not big ones like the NYT to establish legal precedent for when he goes after the big guys. The big news outlets are lawyered up to the hilt so best to go after the small fish first and use the.legal precedent to beat the others around the ears when you go after them.
Don't you know how satellite data becomes a temperature reading? "tweaked six ways from Sunday" doesn't even cover it. It requires a model to be run to turn radiance figures into a temperature profile. And then there are tweaks "six ways from Sunday" to apply then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset
To be fair and accurate, under the "novel" approach of counting every ballot accurately, Al Gore would have won. It certainly appears that the majority of the supreme court deliberately ran out the clock to allow their favoured candidate to the win the election by denying one of the basic tenets of most democratic voting systems: when the totals are close you recount the ballots to make sure the count is correct.
So it's actually the opposite of the situation you imagine, the voters actually awarded Al Gore the presidency but the supreme court appears to have deliberately thwarted the will of the electorate.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's definitely right of centre, but is hardly Fox News. It is right of centre for Canada for sure, but that of course isn't the same thing as down in the US.
Good on the suit however. It wouldn't be the first of last time journalists have gotten science wrong from any news service left or right, though the right does seem to play a bit looser with the truth with "opinion" pieces. Much of it can be attributed to laziness and poor research or lack of understanding than any sort of malice. Or at least the willingness to be lazy and stupid because it supports whatever opinion you want to write about. 50,000$ isn't a lot of money for the National Post, but it is more symbolic than anything else, as it goes against whatever credibility they might have if any... There is a certain amount of trust required for any news service, and once you lose that, it is not long for this world.
If you were to the foremost of your time in philosophy, you wouldn't have any need to site other peoples works in a thinking session. This statement generally applies to the climate change "debate". Muhahaha, and the actual sound of gunfire rings out as if change wasn't so elusive after all..
He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.