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 list are repeated because of wishful thinking. So long as all those evil commie climatologists are out to destroy America, nothing needs to be done about CO2 emissions or the industrialized world's addiction to fossil fuels. The minute AGW becomes widely accepted, something has to be done. And it isn't just the likes of the Koch Brothers trying to preserve their fortunes, it is the average person who believes they have some sacred right to not be out of pocket due to negative human influence on the environment.
AGW denial really is the modern equivalent of praying to the rain god to make the droubt go away.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nice generalisation there.
It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.
Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.
How the hell are you supposed to tell if you are being told the truth if you will not read the dissenting voices?
Again, DO NOT (except after the fact) read the rebutal blogosphere first. Go to the source, then research others opinions. Or else all you are reading is crapot propaganda with confirmation bias.
so goes for the other way around.
Instead of SKS
Try WUWT, judithcurry and climateaudit