Canadian Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post

Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 02:45 · Score: 2, Funny

Hmmmmmm.... Haaaaaahummmmmm...... What could it be? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... Huuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

A leading Canadian climate scientist has been awarded $50,000 in a defamation suit against The National Post newspaper .

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ Huhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... Ummmmmm.... Hmmmm.... Huuuuuuuummmmm...

newspaper

newspaper

newspaper

NEWSPAPER

WAIT, I think I've got it! It's a NEWSPAPER!

Oh looky here, they have a website too! http://www.nationalpost.com/index.html

Good by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 02:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Scientists are learning the tools of the people who hate them.

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.

Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:28 · Score: 2, Informative

You should have read the article because it says as well such a suit would have been rejected in USA.

“Libel law in Canada is often seen as the most regressive in the English speaking world today,” Bill Kovarik, professor of communication at Radford University and a 2009 media fellow at the University of Western Ontario, told The Yale Forum. “A case like this, based only on political criticism, would likely be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. In Canada, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff, so the National Post (one of the most conservative papers in Canada) is going to have to prove their claims are either true or fair comment, and this will be difficult in the Canadian system.”
The comment is not insignificant since Andrew Weaver is also a political personality in British Columbia, he as been elected in 2013. So, when does he sustain an political argument and when does he sustain a scientific one?
Re:Good by Bowling+Moses · 2015-02-07 03:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

The government's pockets are so deep and grant money comes in such a torrent that when I left my job as a scientist funded by government grant money to work a similar job in private enterprise my salary only doubled.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:57 · Score: 1

What he is complaining about is the Majority Consensus, which doesnt care whether you are right or wrong, all it cares about is that you are against the majority. So you will get the hammer, being the little nail that you are.
Re:Good by ColdWetDog · 2015-02-07 04:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

My aren't we a bit of the old narrow minded?
Corporations in search of profit are the only arbiters of good and useful in this society? You seem to live in peculiar, shallow and sterile world. But whatever floats your boat.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Good by William+Baric · 2015-02-07 04:29 · Score: 2

You need to realize that even if many times scientists funded by governments do not produce something useful to you in your day to day life, they do create knowledge which is essentials to scientists who work in the private sector. Without government funded scientists, you'd still live like an Amish.
But then again, maybe that's what you wish for...
Re:Good by BarbaraHudson · 2015-02-07 04:39 · Score: 1

So what? In the US you can get away with very outrageous lies unless the person you libeled has tons of money to sue (Carroll Burnett vs National Enquirer) to set the record straight - and even then, they don't care - it's part of the cost of doing business as usual.
The old Midnight Magazine (now defunct) used to make up stories that were unbelievable, like alien abductions. In one case, they clamed a 101-year-old woman had just given birth. They gave her name and state. Of course it was all made up, so they were surprised that there actually WAS a 101-year-old with that name in that state. They were sued, and figured they'd just draw it out until she died. At 105, she was still kicking, and got her judgment.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:Good by PPH · 2015-02-07 04:43 · Score: 2

At 105, she was still kicking, and got her judgment.
So, how's her alien baby doing?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Good by Bowling+Moses · 2015-02-07 05:09 · Score: 2

If you were to pick up a scientific journal and flip to the end of each article you'd find where the money came from to fund the research. It's rarely from somewhere other than government grants. Privately funded researchers are utterly dependent upon the published literature--we can't make a new drug or vaccine without a lot of research telling us how the system works or where to focus on. Get rid of publicly funded science and privately funded research will quickly grind to a halt.
Re:Good by drinkypoo · 2015-02-07 05:30 · Score: 1

So, how's her alien baby doing?
Batboy is just fine, and has retired in Florida following plastic surgery in Los Angeles.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Good by sumdumass · 2015-02-07 05:47 · Score: 1

Lol.. so much history revisionism in your post that it is no wonder there are deniers.
The established science of the time took the IQ of the jews into consideration already. Eugenics took a lot of other factors into consideration too.
Galileo was not persecuted because he disagreed with the bible, he was persecuted because he made personal insults against the pope and church leaders when the correctly told him he could not present his theories as fact without more evidence. And as we know, his theories needed more work and were not completely accurate. Nothing in the Bible precludes Galileo's theories.
But hey, facts are not important when claiming to push facts right? I mean anything to exagerate your set of facts does nothing to diminish their importance right?
Re:Good by sumdumass · 2015-02-07 05:52 · Score: 1

The hasn't been any updates in the news lately but rumor has it that he became a scientist and politician in canida and has sued some newspaper for libel.
Re:Good by dryeo · 2015-02-07 06:16 · Score: 1

This is Canada, we have a right wing pro-oil government who fires scientists who are climate scientists unless they come up with research showing climate change is non-existent. A lot of scientists are now out of work. Whole libraries of science have been burned and still the scientists stick to their research.
Our government has bet the farm on oil exports at high prices, claim they're finally going to re-balance the budget after blowing the surplus 8 years back and running a deficit for the last 8 years (those evil leftists want to pay down the debt) and the best economic plan they can come up with is pretending balancing the budget before every election (oil revenues are down for some reason).
If you were Canadian your sig would be

Somewhere in Calgary, a university is missing its failed economics professor

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Good by phantomfive · 2015-02-07 06:28 · Score: 1

Probably not, this is a Canadian only issue. To understand why, read this quote from the article:

“Libel law in Canada is often seen as the most regressive in the English speaking world today,” Bill Kovarik, professor of communication at Radford University and a 2009 media fellow at the University of Western Ontario, told The Yale Forum. “A case like this, based only on political criticism, would likely be dismissed on a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. In Canada, the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the plaintiff, so the National Post (one of the most conservative papers in Canada) is going to have to prove their claims are either true or fair comment, and this will be difficult in the Canadian system.”

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Good by mi · 2015-02-07 07:27 · Score: 1

It's rarely from somewhere other than government grants.
Are we to believe, government officials without any skin in the game are better at choosing, which research and researcher to fund, than a corporation striving to produce a new medicine, or building material, or electrical battery, or video-screen for — dare I say it — profit, would be?

Get rid of publicly funded science and privately funded research will quickly grind to a halt.
Why? That (some of) the government-financed research is useful does not mean, disappearance of government-spending in this area would kill such research. The not spending money on "climate science" and other bogus subjects (like "womyn studies") would leave people — currently forced at gunpoint to part with it — to spend it as they see fit instead.
Or are you going to claim, the government's coercion of taxpayers into paying for something, for which they would not have paid given a choice, is somehow good?
But let's not get too far offtopic — in this thread I did not say (until now), that government-paid research is necessarily a bad thing. My point was, anyone with a conflict of interest shall not be trusted when they advocate for an option, that benefits them. Not necessarily so — a tank-maker advocating more heavy-armored brigades could also be sincere and correct — but the risk is too high.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good by ClickOnThis · 2015-02-07 07:40 · Score: 2

The government's pockets are so deep and grant money comes in such a torrent that when I left my job as a scientist funded by government grant money to work a similar job in private enterprise my salary only doubled.
This blew up my sarcasm detector.
Some people seem to think that working as a scientist from government grants is a gravy train. It is not. Competition is significant: typically, out of every 5 to 10 grant applications, only one gets funded. Scientists spend a great deal of time writing proposals that never get funded.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Good by itzly · 2015-02-07 07:48 · Score: 1

My point was, anyone with a conflict of interest shall not be trusted when they advocate for an option, that benefits them.

Still, despite governments preferring that AGW wasn't true, scientists come up with the opposite view.
Re:Good by mi · 2015-02-07 08:22 · Score: 1

Still, despite governments preferring that AGW wasn't true, scientists come up with the opposite view.
Yes, whatever the current government may like to hear, the people paid to do foo can be relied upon to determine, more foo is needed.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good by itzly · 2015-02-07 08:44 · Score: 1

The AGW scaremongering is a huge enabler for those who wish for more/expanded government power and higher taxation.
So, how much has for instance GW Bush increased taxes using AGW scaremongering as excuse ?
Re:Good by Bowling+Moses · 2015-02-07 09:07 · Score: 2

Government officials do not pick and chose who gets awarded a research grant. When you write a grant proposal you are presenting a research proposal, giving the background of the area, the questions you'll be asking and why, the methodology you'll be using and why, what preliminary experiments back you up, where potential pitfalls of the research might be and what alternatives you may use to succeed. This is submitted to a panel of fellow scientists in the field of study or an allied field, who are unknown to you. Your proposal is judged on its merits and ranked among a pool of other proposals submitted, the total number of proposals being much greater than what the granting agency can fund. In this highly competitive process the best research proposals get funded.

Ending government funded research will kill privately funded research as sure as sitting on top an H-bomb when it goes off will be fatal. Drugs work on specific cellular components. Drug companies target specific cellular components to develop drugs. Grant-funded public research teases out what cellular components do what and interact with what, and when they don't do as they should how they might be related to what disease. Biotech/pharma are reluctant enough to spend money on applied research as it is. Strip funding for basic research out of government and add that cost onto the front end of the drug pipeline and the entire biotech and pharmaceuticals industry is completely fucked.

BTW trying to present stem cell research as an example of the wonders of private enterprise over government is laughable. They were discovered at UCSF by researchers funded by an NIH grant--our tax dollars hard at work!
Re: Good by Sique · 2015-02-07 10:08 · Score: 2

The whole amount of money that all governments of the world spend on climate research and weather prediction per year is about 5 billion dollars. Yes, that's a huge amount. But just for comparisation: the fracking industry in the U.S. alone has invested about 1400 billion dollars. So if you are looking for a wellpaid research job, don't become a climate scientist. There is no money in it.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Good by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 10:56 · Score: 1

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
Finally, someone who undrestands that "climate scientists are the highest paid people in the nation. Please make clear your remark that they are not "real scientists".

What "climate scientist" could possibly challenge the doctrine, that pays for his bread and butter?
Aww shit, I thought that yuou understood science. You know nought.
Scientists are in general, a group that enjoy proposing alterntive theories, different possibilities, and can appear to be contrarians at times. Your concept that they simply walk in lockstep with each other, darning not to differ only proves yr know nought.
The problem that denialists do not get is that when scientists converge on agreement, means that their confidence level is getting really high, not that they are busy with a scam job.

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?
Oh my Gawd - I had to parse that a few times to make sure you wrote what I thought you wrote!
Now just between you and us chickens, Buckaroo, I don't take science at face value. If you care to read it, the knowledge is in there. If you care to take your science information form politicians, then you'll get a political view.

Is it because the scientific debate has been lost already?
Had you taken the time to read my post, you would know that my point is that since politicians do not understand science, the scientists need to respond to their malfeasance in a manner the politicians will understand.
Its like arguing with creationists. No point in arguing with them. It's just a hope that someone on the periphery firgures out that it's grade a bullshit.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Good by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 11:17 · Score: 2

The government's pockets are so deep and grant money comes in such a torrent that when I left my job as a scientist funded by government grant money to work a similar job in private enterprise my salary only doubled.
One of the funniest arguments of the denialists is the money argument, where they seem to think that scientists are paid millions, and get millions.
I haven't seen the figures, but my suspcion is that the denialists outspend the science a bit.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Good by BlueStrat · 2015-02-07 12:55 · Score: 1

The AGW scaremongering is a huge enabler for those who wish for more/expanded government power and higher taxation.

So, how much has for instance GW Bush increased taxes using AGW scaremongering as excuse ?
How do I answer such a question from someone who doesn't even know that only the Legislative Branch, e.g. Congress, has the power to create, abolish, raise, or lower federal taxes, not the Executive Branch, e.g. the POTUS?
Go finish school and drop the partisan blinders (I hold equal disgust & disdain for both major US Parties), then you can come back and talk with the grown-ups and be taken seriously.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Good by ceoyoyo · 2015-02-07 12:57 · Score: 2

It's interesting that you've listed all inventors and engineers. What the OP was pointing out is that basic science doesn't always have an immediately obvious application, but is used extensively by people like the ones you listed in order to produce things that do. Edison and Telsa wouldn't have been able to do any of the things they did if it weren't for basic research in electricity and materials done by people before them. The Wright brothers were the latest thing to come along after a hundred years of research into the principles of flight. Torvalds was taking advantage of a truly amazing amount of research into things as obscure as the quantum nature of matter, much of which took place nearly a century earlier.
Re:Good by ceoyoyo · 2015-02-07 13:08 · Score: 2

Yup. And even if you do get the grant, you don't just get to pay yourself whatever you want. Your salary is fixed by the institution you work for and the grant money goes to equipment, students, techs and materials that you very carefully justified in your application.
This is my 18th year of post-secondary science research. This year my salary will increase for the first time in five years (it's been all cuts before this) and I will make 80% (not adjusted for inflation) of what my friend made in 1998 after dropping out of high school and going to work in industry.
Re:Good by ceoyoyo · 2015-02-07 13:13 · Score: 1

"Scientists are in general, a group that enjoy proposing alterntive theories, different possibilities, and can appear to be contrarians at times. Your concept that they simply walk in lockstep with each other, darning not to differ only proves yr know nought."
He he. I've had a few non-scientist friends around when a discussion between scientists broke out. They're convinced we're all nasty bastards who hate each other. I've made friends cry during their practice defences and they've thanked me for it afterward.
Re:Good by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:00 · Score: 1

The AGW scaremongering is a huge enabler for those who wish for more/expanded government power and higher taxation.
Only in your conspiratorial imagination. The typical climate scientist just wants a solution that works, and couldn't care less about your politics.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:Good by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:02 · Score: 1

Leading economic theories on combating climate change involve revenue neutral carbon taxes. Revenue neutral means that the size of the government doesn't increase. Again, no-one cares about your politics, and motivated reasoning.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:Good by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:06 · Score: 1

Yeah, it is a total fiction that conservatives are about small government and fiscal responsibility. As far as I can tell, the Harper government is economically clueless, just like George W., his father, and Ronald voodoo-economics Reagan. It's pure branding, and conservatives have owned the war on framing the conversation. But it is also bullpucky. Liberals get their economics from university economic departments. Conservatives get their economics from their donors, and sell it with doublespeak.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:Good by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 15:10 · Score: 1

He he. I've had a few non-scientist friends around when a discussion between scientists broke out. They're convinced we're all nasty bastards who hate each other. I've made friends cry during their practice defences and they've thanked me for it afterward.
Da Truth! I've been in discussions where one or another of us has blurted out "That's the dumbest Fucking thing you've said yet!"
My favorite was when one fellow said to me "You've asked what on the surface, would appear to be an intelligent question.
It's a matter of getting excited about ideas and being free to almost free associate ideas, then knock them down. After you are used to it, it's a lot of fun. Perhaps it's remants of thesis defense. Note, I am not a scientist myself, I've worked closely with them for many years in matters of visualization.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Good by riverat1 · 2015-02-07 16:28 · Score: 1

Presumably, this single anecdote you are offering as evidence involves a scientist working on something useful.

How do we judge what is going to be useful? How many of the things we take for granted today would have been considered useful before they were discovered? If we limit scientific research only to what we can see is useful we risk missing something that may turn out to be even more useful in the future. Humanity is where it is from people pushing the edge of knowledge and expanding it to even greater understanding. Do you really want to turn off that fountain of bounty that basic research feeds?
Re:Good by riverat1 · 2015-02-07 17:29 · Score: 2

In most sciences a lot of money gets spent on hardware and in climate science particularly there is a lot of expensive hardware and research. So there may be more money spent on climate science than by the anti side. But how much does it cost to design, build, launch and process the data from a satellite? How much does a super computer cost? How much does it cost to launch nearly 4,000 Argo floats? What's the cost of mounting a research expedition to some remote place? How much of that government money is spent on PR would be a better comparison because that's what the climate science denial side has, PR.
Re:Good by phantomfive · 2015-02-07 20:12 · Score: 1

Oh phantom, you were one of the people cheerleading about how the lawsuit was baseless.
I don't recall 'cheerleading' about how this lawsuit was baseless. I don't remember ever hearing about this lawsuit before today.

If I did hear about it, I may have gotten confused that the jurisdiction was in Canada......

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Good by mi · 2015-02-08 03:29 · Score: 1

What the OP was pointing out is that basic science doesn't always have an immediately obvious application
False. What William Baric claimed was, I quote: "Without government funded scientists, you'd still live like an Amish." And then he suspected me of actually wanting that.
My list of scientists, engineers and inventors reminded the audience about their decidedly non-Amish inventions. Inventions, which happened without government funding. William Baric got planed and no amount of creative reinterpreting of his earlier words will help that.

Edison and Telsa wouldn't have been able to do any of the things they did if it weren't for basic research in electricity and materials done by people before them.
Irrelevant — because none of that earlier research was paid for by taxpayers either.

Torvalds was taking advantage of a truly amazing amount of research into things as obscure as the quantum nature of matter
Yes, sure, I always suspected Linux kernel had something to do with quantum mechanics — certain things about it just could not be explained by anything else. Right...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:Good by TheRealLifeboy · 2015-02-08 06:05 · Score: 1

Not really. Some very good scientists see through the shallowness of the warmists hype and histeria and have beem pointing it out for a long time. Seems the Judge doesn't know that the criticism it valid either. Then Phil Plait comes along with a gem like this (from the article):
“This attack on the reputations of scientists is nefarious; reputation is extremely important when it comes to a scientist’s career,” Plait wrote. “Getting grants, invitations to talks, even being taken seriously, all can rest on the respect they get by other scientists and the public.”
Maybe he should consider accuracy, not "adjusting" data to suit the CAGW agenda, transparency and a few other good scientific traits which will fix the reputation thingie almost all by itself!
Re:Good by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 11:54 · Score: 1

The people selling thermometers DGAF whether they're being bought by scientists working for NASA or scientists working for Koch - a sale is a sale.
Next canard?
Re:Good by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 12:54 · Score: 1

The AGW scaremongering is a huge enabler for those who wish for more/expanded government power and higher taxation.
Who's that - Bush who invaded Iraq for it's oil, or Obama who opened the eastern seaboard for drilling, and has spent years bragging about how we drill more oil than we can transport?

How do I answer such a question from someone who doesn't even know that only the Legislative Branch, e.g. Congress, has the power to create, abolish, raise, or lower federal taxes, not the Executive Branch, e.g. the POTUS?
So you're dropping the canard that government likes AGW to raise taxes then? In any case, you might not want to throw stones in your ignorant glass house, as it's the Executive Branch that writes the Federal Budget and submits it to Congress.
Lose-lose, wingner.
Re:Good by ceoyoyo · 2015-02-08 16:55 · Score: 1

The sentences that preceded your quote ware, and I quote:

You need to realize that even if many times scientists funded by governments do not produce something useful to you in your day to day life, they do create knowledge which is essentials to scientists who work in the private sector.
Selective quotation doesn't really work so well when there's a moderately functional threading system like Slashdot's.

Irrelevant — because none of that earlier research was paid for by taxpayers either.
Certainly some of it was publicly funded, if not technically by taxpayers in the modern sense. Much of the basic research that Edison and Tesla took advantage of was done by scientists funded by royal or aristocratic patrons.

Yes, sure, I always suspected Linux kernel had something to do with quantum mechanics
You know the Linux kernel kind of requires computers to run it, right? Guess what the processors in those computers make use of?
Re:Good by tbannist · 2015-02-09 02:48 · Score: 1

So why with a Republican President (Bush) and a Republican Majority in Congress and the Senate, did government scientists still find that AGW was real?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re:WTF by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 02:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Also, the green companies and scientists that distort the facts to make it sound like apocolypse is coming, that the earth will be under water in 50 years, yada yada yada, when really the worst that will happen is the earth gets a tiny bit warmer and oceans are a lttle bit higher. And it can't even be proven that it has anything to do with anthropogenic cause.

Ad Scientist Attack by rmdingler · 2015-02-07 02:59 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Governments and those in power have long used propaganda sprinkled with a careful dissemination of the news to keep their tax bases in check.

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

Re: A talented man by orlanz · 2015-02-07 03:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Become a president.

Re:WTF by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2015-02-07 03:08 · Score: 2, Informative

Saying "Its a newspaper" is inadequate - the National Enquirer qualifies, so does the New York Times.
Conrad Black founded the National Post (while in charge of Hollinger) and writes for it now. He appears to have been in prison when the offending articles were published.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.

Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:10 · Score: 2, Informative

WTF is the National Post?

Anyway the people that need to be sued over climate change are the fossil fuel companies.

The National Post is Canada's right wing national newspaper. The left leaning one being The Globe and Mail.

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Debate? What debate? by RogueWarrior65 · 2015-02-07 03:39 · Score: 1

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?

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:41 · Score: 1

The National Post is Canada's left wing national newspaper. The extremely left leaning one being The Globe and Mail.

FIxed that so the Americans reading understand...

Re:WTF by Livius · 2015-02-07 03:43 · Score: 1

He practically patented

Patent has lost some of its meaning lately, but not that much.

Re:Debate? What debate? by Livius · 2015-02-07 03:44 · Score: 1

No, there's no debate.

Lies are something different.

Re:WTF by Curtman · 2015-02-07 03:45 · Score: 2

The Sun Media "news" outlets are much further to the right.

Even with the shady journalism discussed in this story, I think The National Post would have better judgement than to publish anything said by Ezra Levant for example.

Ezra Isaac Levant (born 1972) is a Canadian media personality, conservative political activist, writer and broadcaster. He is the founder and former publisher of the Western Standard, is a broadcaster and columnist for Sun Media tabloids and television, and has written several books on politics and public policy. He has become involved in several legal and other controversies on free speech issues. Other issues that he has dealt with include multiculturalism, immigration, and economic deregulation. He published the book Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands in 2010 and Groundswell: The Case for Fracking in 2014 through McClelland & Stewart. Levant has been successfully sued for libel on two separate occasions.

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:51 · Score: 1

...he sued for libel because they said he defended the hockey stick graph.

sounds to me quite the opposite of anything positive for the climate whacks.

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 03:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

"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."

You must see that this will backfire, no? by Karmashock · 2015-02-07 03:57 · Score: 2

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.

Re:You must see that this will backfire, no? by riverat1 · 2015-02-07 07:15 · Score: 1

"

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.
Scientist's emails are beside the point. It's what they say in their published, peer reviewed papers that matters. As far as the rest of that, methodology is in the published papers, raw data has not been deleted* and the source code for several of the major climate models is freely available for download. If scientists get sued over any of that they'll win easily.
* Back in the 1980's when the cost of storing data was much higher than it is lately the CRU threw out some data that they no longer needed but the original sources of the data still have their copies so no data was lost.
Re:You must see that this will backfire, no? by Karmashock · 2015-02-07 23:28 · Score: 1

I hear you. But that is politics. If you didn't want this to be a political fight then you shouldn't have made it political.
You did.
The Rubicon has been crossed. The die was cast. And now you have to deal with the consequences of doing that.
The price is that we're not talking about science. It is just another political debate like abortion or gun control. And expecting it to be anything else when both sides have committed to a political fight is at best ignorant.
If you want it to go back to a scientific discussion... which is my wish by the way... then the politics have to be put away. That is going to require a big gesture from all sides for that to happen as well as some very serious vows not to stab each other in the back down the line or immediately shift back into political mode the instant they feel they have an advantage.
If that can happen, then this can be about science again.
Absent that, it is just politics. Period. Science doesn't come into it at all.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:You must see that this will backfire, no? by Karmashock · 2015-02-08 00:03 · Score: 1

... you do realize we're talking about a court of law, right? You don't think emails are going to be relevant in a court trial? Really?
Everything is going to be relevant in a court trial. Character witnesses are going to happen. Both sides are going to bring in expert witnesses. All sorts of otherwise irrelevant information is going to be subpoenaed.
And refusal to comply with a court order is going to be a big problem for the scientists because they have previously been very cagey about sharing some things.
You go to trial and you won't be able to stop it. You resist and you could be held in contempt of court or obstruction of justice or something.
You have no idea the can of worms you're opening.

--
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Re:You must see that this will backfire, no? by riverat1 · 2015-02-08 17:30 · Score: 1

LOL. What can of worms? You think scientists are going to get sued over their science? Ain't going to happen.

Re: WTF by Rob+Y. · 2015-02-07 04:02 · Score: 5, Informative

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...

Re: Unfortunately the damage is already done by msobkow · 2015-02-07 04:07 · Score: 1

You underestimate how many people take print media as gospel, especially from a publication that is *usually* as respectable as the National Post.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:censorship by ColdWetDog · 2015-02-07 04:09 · Score: 2

Libel isn't dissent. That's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re: WTF by jd2112 · 2015-02-07 04:17 · Score: 1

The climate wacks for or the climate wacks against?

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Re:WTF by TheRealHocusLocus · 2015-02-07 04:22 · Score: 3, Funny

[...] and hurricanes will become more frequent along with droughts, and flooding, as rainfall will go up [...]

"...and the wolf will shack up with the lamb, the leopard will go down on the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together, in the climacticus, calamitous tumult of the wicked Anthropocene, and acne, AIDS, poppy/opium genocide, elder death, the end of Africa, hostile weed takeovers, airplane crashes, more Al Qaeda/Taliban, allergies, alligator migration and sex-ratio disruption, anxiety, asteroid strikes, jellyfish attacks, worse beer, brain shrinkage, brothel shortages, return of the black plague, cannibalism, cataracts, cat love, reduction in circumcisions, cougar attacks, thin and healthy rich people, gingerbread house apocalypse, end of golf, no more outdoor ice hockey, no more pasta, maple syrup shortages, pirates, rapes, redhead extinction, sea snot, sexual dysfunction, pug and other short-nosed animals' extinction, new shrimp sex patterns ever weirder than before, giant spiders, alarmingly small spiders, murders, fewer truffles, UFO sightings, noisier oceans, violin extinction, drop in GDP..."

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE

--
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>

Problem solved. by fahrbot-bot · 2015-02-07 04:22 · Score: 4, Funny

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. . . .

Re:Debate? What debate? by claar · 2015-02-07 04:30 · Score: 1

"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...

Re:Debate? What debate? by ilsaloving · 2015-02-07 04:33 · Score: 1

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!

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 04:33 · Score: 5, Informative

"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.)

Re: A talented man by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 04:36 · Score: 1

Well, to be fair he did become president, but it was stolen away from him.

Re: WTF by accessbob · 2015-02-07 04:43 · Score: 2

This is a libel case, not an academic discussion.
The National Post made scurrilous and untrue statements against Andrew Weaver.

The man has a right to protect his personal reputation.

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 04:49 · Score: 3, Informative

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."

Re: WTF by Socguy · 2015-02-07 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:censorship by Socguy · 2015-02-07 04:57 · Score: 2

So a public court of law weighs the evidence and agrees that the paper had been careless and indifferent to the facts and in your mind that makes the paper MORE credible?

This is a Canadian story, but by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-02-07 05:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.

Re:This is a Canadian story, but by rbrander · 2015-02-07 06:19 · Score: 1

>>I'm looking forward to passage of an amendment to the square-cube law that will allow a concrete block to fly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Next problem?
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by Maow · 2015-02-07 07:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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:

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

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?
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by quantaman · 2015-02-07 08:38 · Score: 2

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.
Mark Steyn didn't mock the hockey-stick curve, he called it fraudulent. That's pretty clearly defamation.
Now in both cases it was more a case of the publishers implying that they thought there was malfeasance, rather than implying something had been proven, though I still think there's a case to be made for the lawsuits. In neither case was there any actual evidence of the wrongdoing that was implied, the articles were simply published with the intention of character assassination.

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.
This has nothing to do with the scientific method. This is about protecting debate in the public sphere and I do think it protects it. Consider if you were a climate scientist with a completely impeccable record. How willing would you be to make some high profile statements on your research, knowing that powerful media interests would immediately start dragging your name through the mud and trying to turn you into a pariah and a magnet for crazies?

--
I stole this Sig
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-02-07 08:43 · Score: 1

I said fly, not drop. Passing the amendment I had in mind would allow porcine self-delivery to markets, taking a significant amount of truck congestion off the roads
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-02-07 09:07 · Score: 1

You cite the words of a judge, not a scientist, a person more used to evaluating arguments among celebrities than deciding the value of opposing scientific hypotheses. Scientists accuse each other of manipulating data all the time, as do political columnists. This is traditionally handled by applying the scientific method to marshal facts and test contending hypotheses. If Mann is confident of having science on his side, why should he be afraid of a lowly editorialist?
And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area. You people have chosen to contaminate climate research with your political bullying. Now that this no longer seems to be working, you're rollling in the lawyers. Good luck with that.
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by Maow · 2015-02-07 09:38 · Score: 2

You cite the words of a judge
Of course, who else is better suited to demolishing your bullshit allegation of Mann filing suit over "mocking the hockey-stick curve"?

not a scientist, a person more used to evaluating arguments among celebrities than deciding the value of opposing scientific hypotheses.
Shifting the goal posts after an own-goal isn't going to help you.

Scientists accuse each other of manipulating data all the time,
[Citation Needed]
Challenging interpretation of data, methodology, etc. is not the same as allegations of fraud. Anyone with a basic understanding of either science or ethics is aware of this. You seem to lack either.

This is traditionally handled by applying the scientific method to marshal facts and test contending hypotheses. If Mann is confident of having science on his side, why should he be afraid of a lowly editorialist?
He's suing over allegations of fraud. He's done the science, it's been reviewed and corroborated, but the fraud allegations continue. Filing suit is only logical.

And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area.
And yet I doubt you pollute cosmology articles with comments about how you're "neutral on the size of the galaxy, age of the sun, properties of the Standard Model", etc.

You people have chosen to contaminate climate research with your political bullying.
You're confused - I'm not a denialist, so it's not "my people" doing that.

Now that this no longer seems to be working, you're rollling in the lawyers. Good luck with that.
The denialist side is finding it untenable to challenge the science and is now attacking the scientists. Good luck with that.
It might work for Mann too.:

Justice Emily Burke ordered the National Post, Fisher, Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, and Kevin Libin to pay Weaver $50,000 after finding that the defamation was "serious" and that the "factual foundation to the four articles was distorted or false".
"It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction," Burke wrote in her ruling. "The libel was widely published by at least one high profile journalist and two others."
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-02-07 10:49 · Score: 1

There have been plenty of technical attacks on the hockey-stick curve because it shows a long period of slowly declining temperature, with just small up-and-down fluctuations, until the start of the industrial revolution, when it immediately jackrabbits upward. This ignores that well-documented warm period around CE 1000 snd the notably chilly period that bottomed around 1600. Now an error is not fraud; scientists make oopsies like anyone else, and the peer review process is designed to shake errors out. It turns into fraud when, after a problem like this has been pointed out, a researcher fudges the math to suit his preconceptions and disseminates fishy emails to 'hide a decline' in more recent times.
And yes, Mann could use the slacker libel law in other countries to win a suit. If he can show that somebody in England read Steyn's column on the subject at some point, Steyn could probably be extradited and beheaded. This still does not establish scientific proof of the hockey stick.
None of this invalidates the Arrhenius carbon warming hypothesis. It just does not support it. Let's all agree to allow science, not politics, to determine the truth on climate change.
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 11:37 · Score: 1

"This has nothing to do with the scientific method. This is about protecting debate in the public sphere and I do think it protects it. Consider if you were a climate scientist with a completely impeccable record. How willing would you be to make some high profile statements on your research, knowing that powerful media interests would immediately start dragging your name through the mud and trying to turn you into a pariah and a magnet for crazies?"
Indeed. Now do you understand how its so hard for those who are skeptical of mainstream climate science to come out of the closet?
Even when it isn't true, they are called shills for the oil industry, slandered, dragged through the mud and marginalized.
If you had a career and a family, would you take that risk?
Climate science isn't being politicized, it has been from the early 1980's.
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by ceoyoyo · 2015-02-07 13:21 · Score: 1

Scientists don't accuse each other of manipulating data every day. Misinterpreting data, yes, manipulating, no. Fraudulent data manipulation is a serious charge and, if it turns out to be true, will most likely destroy your career.
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:20 · Score: 1

Wow. I mean, truly you know more about the lawsuit than the judge who is settling the legal question. I'm not sure what legal system you believe in, but it evidently is one where people can sue when their theories are mocked!!! My guess is that you used to be a proud "skeptic" but that that little lovefest of "reason" is untenable, and so you've moved to "neutral".

And yes, I'm proudly neutral on all scientific questions, meaning that the scientific method, not my political opinions, is the fitting arbiter of truth in this area.
"We all mysterious, especially to ourselves" -- Miss Marple.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:24 · Score: 1

The hockey stick has been replicated a dozen times using different methods, and the original paper has been scrutinized several times, and found to be sound. But I'm sure you are "neutral" about the science when one Roy Spencer, Tim Ball, or heck, Lord Monckton throw sciency terms around like they are in an episode of Star Trek. Yep, it really is like that, Mr Neutral.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:26 · Score: 1

Well, it does strike me as true that those who are public in their opposition to climate science have ruined their careers, and are now 100% reliant on think-tank money and funding in order to pay their bills. That's the price for being a crank. Now *you* may not think it is crankery, but cranks never do. So how do you tell what is real?

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by quantaman · 2015-02-07 22:07 · Score: 1

Indeed. Now do you understand how its so hard for those who are skeptical of mainstream climate science to come out of the closet?
Yes, and I do empathize.

Even when it isn't true, they are called shills for the oil industry, slandered, dragged through the mud and marginalized.
If you had a career and a family, would you take that risk?
Climate science isn't being politicized, it has been from the early 1980's.
So there's an important distinction. It is quite common for high profile climate skeptics to have a strong ideology that skews strongly right and is very pro-industry, particularly blue collar industries like oil, those biases are valid discussion points.
There's also a few who do have a financial stake in the oil industry or are even being paid by oil companies for their advocacy. Those should definitely be exposed.
But otherwise the criticism should focus on the substance. I think the major valid criticism is that they generally don't know what the hell they're talking about, and they are misunderstanding or misrepresenting basic things. But someone shouldn't be accused of being paid by oil companies unless there's evidence.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:This is a Canadian story, but by david_thornley · 2015-02-09 10:17 · Score: 1

I'm aware of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. All the records I've seen have been roughly European, and Europe (even extended to Greenland) isn't that much of the world.
The key to understanding "global warming" is the word "global". If some region or other is colder than usual, that is not good evidence against global warming. I have noticed that some people seem to think Europe or North America constitutes all of the planet, but a little time with a globe will show that just isn't so.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 05:08 · Score: 1

find two opposing points of view and present them as equals

That's not it. Their job is find stories of international, national, or regional interest and provide the best, most accurate information (as you say). Presenting only two sides of an argument can be a distortion, as the issue may be multifaceted. Presenting the sides as equals can be problematic, as some positions can be completely, factually wrong.

Re: WTF by MightyMartian · 2015-02-07 05:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

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.

Re:WTF by sumdumass · 2015-02-07 05:11 · Score: 1

Its interesting that you brouht up costs and how it would effect geographical areas. The current so called solutions will do the same too. The difference is largely the timescale involved. We either see the change over a generation or two and watch the rich lose some land or we take action right now to ptotect the mega corporate farms and the rich's land holding and see the costs increase in a decade of less.

One of those scenarios- hmm. Never mind. We can just get government to magically take care of all the poorer people by taxing the rich and when there are no more rich left, we will have successivly replace freedom and everyone will do what the government says. Its worked out so well in the past so it will be fine in the future.

Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 05:19 · Score: 1

No, not really. Both those papers are definitely right-wing. The closest thing to a left-leaning newspaper in Canada is the Toronto Star.

It has worked by ebcdic · 2015-02-07 05:32 · Score: 2

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.

Re:It has worked by newcastlejon · 2015-02-07 08:18 · Score: 1

Speaking of Wakefield...

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.

Re: WTF by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2015-02-07 05:38 · Score: 1

The media's job is to find two opposing points of view and present them as equals.

1. You're conflating "journalism" and "media".

2. Your statement is untrue for either. However, it is a standard recipe for "infotainment".

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Re: WTF by Strider- · 2015-02-07 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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...

Re: Unfortunately the damage is already done by cheesybagel · 2015-02-07 05:56 · Score: 1

You underestimate how many people think that anything that was published in a science publication is gospel.

Like using acid baths to produce stem cells.

Re: WTF by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 06:00 · Score: 1, Interesting

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

Re: WTF by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 06:02 · Score: 1

I havent seen the original articles.

However I agree with your statement. Published false statements against a specific person should be punished.

Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.

Re:WTF by rbrander · 2015-02-07 06:05 · Score: 2

Can you provide links to the stories of these "skeptic scientists" (isn't that redundant?) Are you talking about people with peer-reviewed papers being fired because their boss didn't like the results of the work? Or are you talking about people who couldn't get properly-done science published because a peer-reviewed journal had it in for them?

Or are you talking about "scientists" that had strong opinions NOT backed up by science of the kind that can pass peer review?

Even that is fine; firing people for opinions, even ones they cannot prove scientifically, is pretty bad - but I'd like to see the cases, see if they have merit.

I mean, thanks for your link to "climate audit" - the middle of a mathematically-complex *criticism* of a scientific paper; but I know I'm not competent to adjudicate that dispute. Peer-reviewed journals *ARE* able to, generally, and if this criticism could only get published at "climateaudit.org", and not the Journal of Climate or any of 21 other climate-related peer-reviewed journals, then I'm sorry, but I have to assume it's not very good.

My reliance on peer-reviewed journals is not the logical fallacy of "Argument by Authority"; that refers to statements like "Penicillin works because the King has proclaimed it". The statement "Penicillin works because 35 careful studies of infection outcomes showed positive and repeatable results" is another kind of authority altogether.

"Exploding heads" by MillionthMonkey · 2015-02-07 06:13 · Score: 1

I knew when I clicked on "Read Comments" that some of them would be stupid enough to make my head explode.

Re:"Exploding heads" by MillionthMonkey · 2015-02-07 06:43 · Score: 1

These comment sections are always riddled with a dozen dittoheads that gravitate to these stories and ruin the threads by parroting the same stupid conspiratorial talking points over and over- "scientists are cherry pickers", "scientists used to think the sun revolved around the earth too", etc. Sometimes I see a real skeptic bringing up interesting points- then I have more to say. Since I don't want to waste my time replying to every thick-headed numskull who pastes the same bullshit, all you're going to get is an insult. Bye.
Re:"Exploding heads" by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 15:00 · Score: 1

Sometimes I see a real skeptic bringing up interesting points- then I have more to say. Since I don't want to waste my time replying to every thick-headed numskull who pastes the same bullshit, all you're going to get is an insult. Bye.
I'd certainly love ot discuss with real skeptics.
Sad to say, very few of the denialists have any intention of changing their mind.
And it usually only takes a few links to the sites debunking denialism for the political ones to go away. A few will stick around to ramp up the denying. When you show how some of their "Best Evidence" is manipulated by little tricks such as leaving the last twenty years of temperature data, or they use old and outdated data, sort of like the Creationists try to do, there is no point in dealing with them personally.
I only post the links to references and debunking of their "son-science" for those who might still be swayed.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:"Exploding heads" by huckamania · 2015-02-07 15:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
Re:"Exploding heads" by Accordion+Noir · 2015-02-07 16:13 · Score: 1

You won't change your mind about climate change until the Arctic is "ice free"?
I'm in favour of considering its merits well before that.

--
"Ruthlessly pursuing the idea that the accordion is just another instrument."

Re:WTF by Opportunist · 2015-02-07 06:20 · Score: 1

But ... but only by a little, right? We'll just die a little.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re: WTF by Opportunist · 2015-02-07 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re: WTF by phantomfive · 2015-02-07 06:24 · Score: 1

Indeed, the scientific approach is to actively seek out opinions you disagree with.....it helps you avoid confirmation bias.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:A talented man by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 06:29 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Disturbing parallel: climate science and Islami by sideslash · 2015-02-07 06:35 · Score: 2

Orthodoxy of any sort is inherently joke-worthy, even if the orthodoxy is correct in its tenets.

Re:The mantle of science by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 06:36 · Score: 2, Informative

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.

Re: WTF by ClickOnThis · 2015-02-07 06:51 · Score: 2

Canadian columnist Alan Fotheringham (aka "Dr. Foth") refers to it as The National Pest.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.

Re:WTF by Stephan+Schulz · 2015-02-07 06:52 · Score: 2

We either see the change over a generation or two and watch the rich lose some land or we take action right now to ptotect the mega corporate farms and the rich's land holding and see the costs increase in a decade of less.

While the Dutch people may be on the rich side world-wide (and by median maybe even by US standards), I'm no so sure about the Bangladeshi. But hey, there only 150000000 of them, and most of them are on the brown side...

--

Stephan

Re: WTF by Stephan+Schulz · 2015-02-07 06:56 · Score: 1

find two opposing points of view and present them as equals

That's not it.

Methinks you need to take your sarcasmometer back to the shop for readjustment...

--

Stephan

Re:WTF by ClickOnThis · 2015-02-07 07:00 · Score: 2

"Passivity"... REALLY!?!?!?!?\
Alarmists and green organisations are DOWN RIGHT AGGRESSIVE. They always have been.
They call for no less than:

- The death penalty
- Jail time for people expressing their opinions
- Murder
- Exploding heads of those who dont tow the line (look at the propaganda video)

Citations please. Especially the alleged "propaganda video."

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.

Re:WTF by sonicmerlin · 2015-02-07 07:04 · Score: 1

The NOAA estimated the cost of mitigation to be .06% of GDP growth/year. Climate change hurts the poor far more than the rich.

Re:WTF by Em+Adespoton · 2015-02-07 07:11 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 07:12 · Score: 1

I don't get my views on climatology from some blog or propaganda site. So in what leading peer-reviewed scientific journals may I read this skeptical scientific discussion and the evidence-backed arguments of the anti-AGWers? Is their an equivalent of the IPCC whose website you could point me to? How about an equivalent to the Royal Society, or the American Geophysical Union? I can find their pro-AGW views and why they have them quite easily, but I can't find an anti-AGW group of remotely similar stature or quality of argument.

Re:WTF by MagickalMyst · 2015-02-07 07:15 · Score: 2

The "National Joke" is a heavily slanted and biased Israeli-Canadian newspaper, based in Canada.

This is isn't the first time that they have blatantly printed false information.

--
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.

Re:WTF by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 07:21 · Score: 4, Informative

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...

Re:The mantle of science by itzly · 2015-02-07 07:23 · Score: 1

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.

Re:WTF IS RIGHT by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 07:29 · Score: 1

we will have successivly replace freedom

This shit is barely readable pap and gets modded up? I weep.

Later by MillionthMonkey · 2015-02-07 07:38 · Score: 1

I just have too many anti-vaxxers to yell at today.

Re:Later by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 07:45 · Score: 1

Are you trying to associate me to the anti-vaccine movement?
tsk tsk. You really are desperate.
Re:Later by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 10:58 · Score: 1

Nothing against vaccines, GMO's, or Darwin.
Next.
Re:Later by RabidReindeer · 2015-02-07 14:10 · Score: 1

Nothing against vaccines, GMO's, or Darwin.
Next.
Sadly, it appears that the anti-vaxers are less Darwin and more assault with a deadly weapon. Aimed at those too young to be vaccinatable yet.
Re:Later by tbannist · 2015-02-09 02:24 · Score: 2

Are you trying to associate me to the anti-vaccine movement?
To an outside observer there isn't much difference between you two. Both groups seem to believe that an evil cabal of scientists is trying to trick them. Why should we can which paranoid delusion you believe in?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Later by cbeaudry · 2015-02-09 03:00 · Score: 1

Ad Hominem attack topped by an association fallacy.
I stated that I have no problem with vaccines. But you persist in trying to associate me with that.
Your "Righteousness" is clearly showing.
Because I believe the state of mainstream climate science is suffering from strong confirmation bias and also from bad science, which has been demonstrated over and over, as well as a peer review process that has been hijacked, you seek to discredit me by associating me with a group that based their information on 1 bad paper.
The differences are numeros, namely there are allot more than 1 scientists who are skeptical on maintream alarmist climate science and their theories (except for a few more vocal crack pots) are sound.
It is easy to pigeon whole all dissenting voices and paint us all like ignorant hicks, however it only shows how worried the alarmists are of engaging in debates. Much easier to smear than it is to actually win with arguments.
Enjoy the air up there on your high horse.
Re:Later by tbannist · 2015-02-14 09:28 · Score: 1

Ad Hominem attack topped by an association fallacy.
I'm not attacking your character, because you really do believe in a paranoid fantasy. Also, I'm not trying to associate you with anti-vaxxers, you do that with your words and your behaviour.

Because I believe the state of mainstream climate science is suffering from strong confirmation bias and also from bad science, which has been demonstrated over and over, as well as a peer review process that has been hijacked, you seek to discredit me by associating me with a group that based their information on 1 bad paper.
The primary problem with what you've written is that none of it is true. If climate change research is based on "bad science" it should be trivial to discredit it, but it's not. Every time someone show some so-called "bad science" in climate change, it turns out they've greatly exaggerated what they've found. The real criticism of the hockey stick graph, for example, put a practically unnoticeable bump in the "handle" part of the graph, yet the statistician who found the error continues to claim he "disproved" the graph because he found that there was a better statistical regression method that should have been used instead that had no real impact on the graph on the conclusion drawn from it.
It's like trying to prove in a court of law that you shouldn't get a speeding ticket because you were going 100 mph over the speed limit, because in reality you were only doing 99.7 mph over the speed limit. Inconsequential.

It is easy to pigeon whole all dissenting voices and paint us all like ignorant hicks, however it only shows how worried the alarmists are of engaging in debates. Much easier to smear than it is to actually win with arguments.
You seem to have mistaken pity for fear. I think you're delusional. You think that thousands of scientists have been studying a subject for 30 years and yet not one of them have realized the truth that you know without ever having studied it at all. You're a text book case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Contrary to what you believe, even the so-called skeptical scientists admit that global warming is true, that it's happening and that's it's man-made. They mostly disagree on how fast it will progress but personally, I don't think the evidence even supports their positions on that issue. They clutch at faint hopes (clouds or other mysterious negative feedbacks that have yet to be discovered) that things will not be as bad they likely will be. They cling to these hopes for many different reasons, such as money, faith, or publicity, but as the evidence accumulates the fringe theories are slowly being disproved one after another.

Enjoy the air up there on your high horse.
Pull your head out of your ass and you could enjoy the air too.

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical

Re: WTF by phantomfive · 2015-02-07 07:39 · Score: 1

If you've looked at the hockey stick "science" you'd be laughing at it too.

What parts of the hockey stick science do you find laughable? I could see someone possibly calling it 'flawed,' but is there really anything funny about it?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:WTF by O('_')O_Bush · 2015-02-07 08:18 · Score: 1

My favorite part was when you went the "scientific conspiracy" (emphasis on scare quotation marks) route and then cited a GOP shill org infamous for being bought and paid for by Big Tobacco as an example of a just, skeptical org fighting against "big bad science". Hilarious.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);

Re: WTF by epine · 2015-02-07 08:28 · Score: 1

I haven't seen the original articles.

I think I did read the original articles, but I'm not certain and now it's going to take some work to dig them up again so I can re-evaluate my original conclusions in light of this law suit. How very clever of Mr Weaver to aggressively remove the undo key from my mental keyboard.

Re:So the environmental activists win against real by Socguy · 2015-02-07 08:35 · Score: 1

Could you clarify your comment? Are you trying to say that the newspaper was promoting good science? Who is the Church of Environmentalism?

You are wrong sir by aepervius · 2015-02-07 09:42 · Score: 1

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)?

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

Re:WTF by Jane+Q.+Public · 2015-02-07 09:43 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

Re:Debate? What debate? by RogueWarrior65 · 2015-02-07 09:59 · Score: 1

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.

Re:WTF by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 10:06 · Score: 1

And I quite like your ad hominem attacks.

It is indeed hilarious that you would dismiss climateaudit because of your preconceived bias, instead of look at the article, and original study and make up your own mind about the facts.

You're spouting nonsense propaganda and slandering a website in a thread about defamation and slander.

CLIMATEaudit is a blog about climate science (be it skeptical or not) it has nothing to do with Big Tobacco and you know it. There are no BIG tobacco articles on that site.

Calling a Canadian science site a GOP shill, just shows your lack of intelligence and integrity. There is no such thing as the GOP in Canada.

Now, are you going to be a reasonable person and do your own research before spouting your hatred again? Or are you going to go back to sks, or desmogblog to look up a talking point to throw back at me?

Re:WTF by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-02-07 10:13 · Score: 1

He practically patented

Patent has lost some of its meaning lately, but not that much.

Well, the right use is "he made Global Warming patent." As in "readily open to notice or observation; evident; obvious:"

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Re:WTF by budgenator · 2015-02-07 11:22 · Score: 2

How quick they say "Citations please. " then the silence is deafening when you do.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:WTF by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 11:28 · Score: 1

Indeed. Either that, or they are furiously researching on green public relations sites like DeSmogBlog for ways to attack what I said... or attack me.

Re:WTF by budgenator · 2015-02-07 11:28 · Score: 1

hurricanes will become more frequent, really when?

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re: WTF by Mashiki · 2015-02-07 11:32 · Score: 1

Well if NAPO is "the Fox News paper of Canada" then Globe and Mail and The Star are Pravda. Which means we don't have a centrist paper.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re:WTF by mSparks43 · 2015-02-07 11:39 · Score: 1

ahhh

but will the sea levels rise?

to what they were a thousand years ago or so......

Re:WTF by mSparks43 · 2015-02-07 11:41 · Score: 1

ahhh

but will the sea levels rise?

to what they were a thousand years ago or so......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

the only thing that worries me about climate change is the deniers might be wrong and we slump straight into an ice age when we run out of oil in 50 years or so.

Re: WTF by budgenator · 2015-02-07 11:51 · Score: 1

"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.

See there it is, the warmest say they don't libel, but they go full-monkey mode flinging the poo of the thinly veiled Holocaust Denier Ad Hominen, in the first sentence.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re: WTF by BlueStrat · 2015-02-07 13:26 · Score: 1

I shudder to think what will happen when they tell the dupes they must off themselves, per Jim Jones, for the good of the planet. They'll probably do it.

Not quite.

The way it's worked in similar situations through history is to tell the dupes "It's *that* group/race/religion/ideology/etc's fault!"

"GET THEM!!!"

Rinse & repeat until the number and racial/political/religious/ideological makeup of the dupes are within the desired range.

Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

Re:WTF by sumdumass · 2015-02-07 14:07 · Score: 1

So 150 million people could not build dikes and levies like the Dutch has in the span of 1 or 2 centuries?

If not, I'm not sure they count- survival of the fittest and evolution wise and all. I mean seriously, do you think the dutch do not know how to manage rising sea water?

Re:The mantle of science by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:11 · Score: 1

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

Re:WTF by RabidReindeer · 2015-02-07 14:19 · Score: 2

oceans are a lttle bit higher.

If you take a boat out into the Gulf of Mexico, you can float over sites that used to be Indian villages and that's pre-AGW. More than a "little bit".

And it can't even be proven that it has anything to do with anthropogenic cause

Nor can it be proven that smoking causes cancer. Some things have so many roots that a single cause simply cannot be laid straight to an effect. Just that when the statistics begin to line up, it might be prudent to act like there is such a relationship. Instead of, say, standing on a small island and pretending that the water isn't going to keep rising because there's no "proof".

Re:WTF by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:30 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Re:WTF by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:36 · Score: 1, Troll

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

Re: WTF by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:38 · Score: 1

The sad truth is that it will not cost the USA economy much (if anything) to make huge strides in reducing CO2 emissions. The technology is already here. Koch and Koch will need a new business model, which is what this is really about.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re: WTF by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:41 · Score: 1

Haha, nah, denialists are the ones running the PR campaign, and Mann receives constant death threats. Do you know what a mimophat is?

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re:WTF by sumdumass · 2015-02-07 14:42 · Score: 1

And much, much, much more than that can be seen from political gamesmanship. It's the rich who will have to relocate or somehow do something about their ocean front property. It's the rich who will lose all their land values in NYC and so on because of flooding concerns. Very few poor people own land there, they do however live in buildings owned by the rich.

Re: WTF by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:43 · Score: 1

Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.

The thing with crankery, is that cranks never let themselves in on the secret. It is a "self-secret" if you will.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re:WTF by Ol+Olsoc · 2015-02-07 14:51 · Score: 2

Can you provide links to the stories of these "skeptic scientists"

Canada does not now support science, or at least only a conservative politically correct version of it

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read...

http://hour.ca/2006/04/20/catc...

http://ottawariverkeeper.ca/ne...

http://scienceblogs.com/confes...

http://www.thestar.com/opinion...

And in a happy flashback to the KGB monitoring it's people The Government actually sent people to MONITOR Canadian Scientists at an international polar conference!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol...

http://ottawariverkeeper.ca/ne...

That is just about as creepy as it gets. A gulag for the evil scientists is next?

Any questions comrade?

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Re: WTF by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:55 · Score: 1

It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.

Projection isn't a river in Egypt.

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.

Or maybe read some original papers on the issue! Of course, if it doesn't agree with Anthony Watts, then you'll probably consider it propaganda. Bet you never read these.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-07 14:55 · Score: 1

Clicked the first link and while it's certainly lame not even a slow child would think it's actually calling for people's heads to be blown up like you claim. That you put it first and foremost tells me the other links aren't worth two seconds of my time. Great advocacy there, bub.

Re: WTF by microbox · 2015-02-07 14:56 · Score: 1

Gee, what was the last legitimate mainstream science paper you read on the hockey stick? Rich, eh?

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re:WTF by huckamania · 2015-02-07 15:13 · Score: 2

Which is why real estate in New York and Miami is at an all time low...

Oh wait, that's what my model said. I checked it against reality and it appears there may be a flaw somewhere.

Re:WTF by huckamania · 2015-02-07 15:14 · Score: 1

And it turns out that genetics plays an even greater role in cancer. Science bitches!

Re: WTF by riverat1 · 2015-02-07 15:57 · Score: 1

Of course it's only the climate science deniers who try to equate all denial with holocaust deniers in an attempt to get some sympathy.

Re:So the environmental activists win against real by sethstorm · 2015-02-07 16:00 · Score: 1

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.

Re: WTF by cbeaudry · 2015-02-07 16:14 · Score: 1

Your cute.

Re:WTF by Livius · 2015-02-07 16:23 · Score: 2

No, he informed people about what other people already knew.

He does not have the superpowers some people seem to think he has.

Re: WTF by Idarubicin · 2015-02-07 16:40 · Score: 1

Well if NAPO is "the Fox News paper of Canada" then Globe and Mail and The Star are Pravda. Which means we don't have a centrist paper.

I am vaguely amused that the good old Grope and Flail is now considered communist left. I mean, seriously?

--
~Idarubicin

What other science are you neutral about? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2015-02-07 17:13 · Score: 1

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?

Re:So the environmental activists win against real by Socguy · 2015-02-07 19:21 · Score: 1

Do you have examples where Al Gore and the Sierra club are promoting belief over science?

Re: WTF by Mashiki · 2015-02-07 19:43 · Score: 1

I am vaguely amused that the good old Grope and Flail is now considered communist left. I mean, seriously?

It has been for about 5-6 years now after they changed their editorial direction. They thought they saw the path of politics going left, and followed TorStar the hemorrhaging of subs didn't stop though, it accelerated.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

Re: WTF by riverat1 · 2015-02-07 22:51 · Score: 2

I'm going to steal that list. It's spot on.

Re: WTF by Plumpaquatsch · 2015-02-08 02:11 · Score: 1

If you've looked at the hockey stick "science" you'd be laughing at it too.

What parts of the hockey stick science do you find laughable?

Probably the parts he doesn't understand. So pretty much all of it.

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.

Re: Unfortunately the damage is already done by cheesybagel · 2015-02-08 05:35 · Score: 1

Science advances one funeral at a time.

I wonder what people will think of AGW theory in 50 years.

Re:censorship by kenai_alpenglow · 2015-02-08 10:25 · Score: 1

'fraid that is *NOT* what I said. I said that I don't know either side personally, but if you bring in a lawyer to restrict speech, I find that lessens that side's credibility. Regardless of which side is which.

Re:censorship by kenai_alpenglow · 2015-02-08 10:27 · Score: 1

In politically sensitive areas (Yes, climate change fits that agenda), using "libel" is a common way of stifling dissent.

Re:bravo! by phantomfive · 2015-02-08 10:54 · Score: 1

wow, that is quite a compliment.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:bravo! by Uberbah · 2015-02-08 12:38 · Score: 1

It was sarcasm. The deniers can't be wrong, Canadian law must be wrong.

Re:bravo! by phantomfive · 2015-02-08 13:55 · Score: 1

No one in this thread has said Canadian law must be wrong?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re: A talented man by kenh · 2015-02-08 15:16 · Score: 1

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

Re:The mantle of science by rujholla · 2015-02-08 18:30 · Score: 1

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.

climate change defamation by BundyGil · 2015-02-08 21:07 · Score: 1

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.

Re: WTF by dave420 · 2015-02-08 22:57 · Score: 1

The MWP was a localised event in Europe. Comparing that to a global event is, well, about as dumb as it gets.

Re:WTF by Optali · 2015-02-08 23:38 · Score: 1

OK mate, I am an European and I didn't had a clue either.
And it's not so obvious in the case of Canada, it could have been anything from an association of hobby sealclubbers to the actual national postal service.
Who knows how weird things can get in a country where the toilets flush the other way around !

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast

Re:Which witch is which? by dave420 · 2015-02-09 00:06 · Score: 1

Those scientists didn't not predict an earthquake, they predicted there would be no earthquake. See the difference?

Re:WTF by dl_sledding · 2015-02-09 02:39 · Score: 1

...in the mirror.

Finished TFU.

:)

Dude has porked and haired up a lot.

Hardly Fox News by DarthVain · 2015-02-09 02:49 · Score: 1

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.

Re: WTF by dywolf · 2015-02-09 07:28 · Score: 1

Scientist: Global warming is happening.
Newspaper: The scientist is a liar in it for money! And he eats puppies!

That's a pretty clear cut case of defamation.
The scientist is well within his rights to sue.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.

Let me think about this.. by Bust0ut · 2015-02-09 15:52 · Score: 1

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.

Slashdot Mirror

Canadian Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post

189 of 297 comments (clear)