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."
You betcha we understand. Being a "climate scientist" is also a great sort of job. One gets paid by the government, which has deep pockets, and does — unlike real scientists — does not need to come up with anything useful.
What "climate scientist" could possibly challenge the doctrine, that pays for his bread and butter? The conflict of interest these people are facing is stupendous. You would not accept a tank-manufacturer's argument, we need more tanks without a giant dollop of the proverbial salt — why do you take a climate-scientist's argument, the humanity is danger unless we continue paying him for more "research", at face value?
Is it because the scientific debate has been lost already? Whatever this particular paper may have said, you have no proof, alarmists. Your best argument is Pascal's Wager, for crying out loud — as was predicted by your laughing opponents a years earlier.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We must prosecute Galileo -- the academic consensus is clearly against his nutty heliocentric ideas.
We must exterminate defective races -- the science is clearly in favor of Aryan supremacy.
We must take to the courts and prosecute anyone who dares to insult our religion^Wscience!
Exactly. 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. Calling for overt censorship, from certain perspectives, looks no different than trying to hide something.
Of course, the real problem is the moronic US public that knows the climate change deniers are lying, but repeats their lies because... Obama!
We think we're so far above the tribal idiocy of Shiite vs. Sunni, and yeah, we don't go around beheading our enemies, but we are becoming just as much an 'us vs. them' society.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I believe that Steve McIntyre believes what he says, and thinks he is doing the right thing. Now what is true is that, McIntyre, McKitrick, Lindzen, Spencer, Pat Michaels, all travel in the same circles, receiving money from industry insiders who perfected the tobacco strategy. No-one is going to hire these people now, so they are dependent on the largess of the interests that they serve. Too bad for them.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right