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."
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.
WTF is the National Post?
Anyway the people that need to be sued over climate change are the fossil fuel companies.
Yeah, sort of.
But I look at this as a shot across the bow. If denialists want to lie about the research, or misrepresent scientists, they can do so at their own risk. Because the science is a bit harder to get through some folks heads, but duplicity and personal attacks against scientists isn't. And since denialist cherry picking tends to end up in lies, I say speak to them in their own language - money.
50 K against an obscure newspaper isn't much money. But its just showing the end of passivity in the face of duplicity.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No one should be sued.
How can we have an open debate when one side censors the other, through lawsuits, censorship, or even making discussion outright illegal (see Holocaust denial)?
It doesn't matter how ridiculously wrong the other side is. Doesn't matter if they are NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, ISIS, whoever. Let them speak their mind and let the people figure out that their arguments are largely full of shit and let the people reject them on merit. Or, if they choose to, accept them.
Of course, I do agree that global warming is happening, and is at least somewhat a result of human activities. However, this constant censoring of the skeptics gets me angry. Let them present their data and let me research and determine who is right. Rather than just have scientists tell me their stuff is a bunch of baloney and must be censored or it will cause harm.
idk, when you have partisan media spreading actual defamation of people rather than debating on facts, then lawsuits are basically the only way to rein them in. It's especially a problem when the same large corporations have a stake in ALL your countries media, it's rare that you will get the "basic facts" in the first place.
"If the data being used against your arguments is so faulty, let it be put out there and publish your paper proving their conclusions wrong. "
We'd all love the AGW-deniers to do exactly that. They don't. Instead they libel--as proven in a court of law. There is no more censorship here than there would be if a libel suit prevented me from following you around every day spouting off crap like "JWW is a liar who beats his wife."
How can we have an open debate when one side censors the other, through lawsuits, censorship, or even making discussion outright illegal (see Holocaust denial)?
How can you have an open debate when one side uses lies and personal attacks instead of facts?
It doesn't matter how ridiculously wrong the other side is. Doesn't matter if they are NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, ISIS, whoever. Let them speak their mind and let the people figure out that their arguments are largely full of shit and let the people reject them on merit. Or, if they choose to, accept them.
It DOES matter how ridiculously wrong one side is when their goal is not to win a debate but to DELAY ACTION. By manufacturing controversy where there is none, one side wins.
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.
It is one thing to refute someone's research with other information that contradicts it, comes to a different conclusion or simply represents a different point of view.
It is a completely different thing if you can't refute someone's research and resort to slander and character assassination to keep him from being listened to.
I hope you can see the difference.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I would change my mind, if the world was warming at an accelerated rate, if the arctic was ice free, if the models matched reality, if the people in charge of the temperature records would stop cooling the past, etc, etc, etc...
I'm against hyperbole and trollish behavior on either side.