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."
Okay. So what do you do when you already have shown the opposing arguments to be false, and they keep making them. And then they resort to defaming your character, since they can't really counter your science. Some societies will go for a strict free speech approach that allows the liar to keep on lying and hopes that the effects won't be too bad. Other societies decide to put limits on how long you can keep spreading lies publicly. You may decide to think of this as censorship, but certainly there are degrees. Canada's certainly not coming down on the side of suppressing facts here... The US errs on the side of letting rich guys pay to spread lies. Which is the better approach?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
"I initiated the lawsuit in 2010 after the National Post refused to retract a number of articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held,"
That's is different than attacking someone's faulty science. (If you've looked at the hockey stick "science" you'd be laughing at it too.)
The problem is that there is no data for faulty arguments. In fact, there were no arguments to be faulty. The claim is that the paper just completely made up bullshit and lies.
From the article: Weaver said, "I initiated the lawsuit in 2010 after the National Post refused to retract a number of articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held."
The National Post is hardly an obscure newspaper. It is one of two national newspapers in Canada, and the one decidedly on the right. Basically it is the Fox News of Newspapers in Canada.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
The National Post isn't an obscure paper though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The National Post is a Canadian paper based out of Toronto, and was the flagship paper of PostMedia, one of Canada's major media conglomerates. It is in direct competition with The Globe and Mail (the other major paper title). It used to be a major National title, but its readership dropped off about the same time it started doing strong "partisan" editorials on topics with strong pro-Israeli/anti-muslim content (including the 2006 Iran controversy). In the past decade, they have not been strangers to coloring their reporting, sometimes past the line of believability.
The Video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Jail for deniers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...
Murder:
Comment by Bluecloud
https://twitter.com/RichardTol...
There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.
Death penalty:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.co...
Michael Mann has sued columnist Mark Steyn for mocking the hockey-stick curve.
Wrong. If that were the case, the judge wouldn't have said the following when denying Steyn's motion to dismiss:
For the record, I'm neutral on climate. I trust the scientific method to come up with the truth.
What do you think they've been working on for the past decade and a half (or longer)?
Are you also neutral on quantum mechanics? Gravity? Germ theory? Tell us, oh wise one, what other fields of science do you feel neutral about?
Saying "Its a newspaper" is inadequate - the National Enquirer qualifies, so does the New York Times.
Why is it inadequate? The New York Times has been known -- and not infrequently, I might add -- to publish stories of a quality similar to the National Enquirer. Especially when it comes to climate change, I might also add.
Also, libel and defamation laws in Canada and the UK are very different from those here in the U.S.
Oh, I agree that green groups are annoying in their tactics. I decry the uncivilized tone of all of it. Now, if you want to know who started it, then you have to read some history, and I assure you, there is a lifetime worth of references to read there. (Personally, I spot check about one in every 100 references -- and check more regularly if one fails the sniff test. I find this effective.)
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right