Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post
Layzej writes A leading Canadian climate scientist has been awarded $50,000 in a defamation suit against The National Post newspaper. Andrew Weaver sued the Post over four articles published between December 2009 and February 2010. The articles contain "grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet," and they "poison" the debate over climate change, Weaver asserted in a statement at the time the suit was filed. The judge agreed, concluding "the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts. As evident from the testimony of the defendants, they were more interested in espousing a particular view than assessing the accuracy of the facts."
This is the first of several law suits launched by climate scientists against journalists who have published alleged libels and falsehoods. Climate scientist Ben Santer suggests the following explanation for these types of defamations: "if you can't attack the underlying science, you go after the scientist."
This is the first of several law suits launched by climate scientists against journalists who have published alleged libels and falsehoods. Climate scientist Ben Santer suggests the following explanation for these types of defamations: "if you can't attack the underlying science, you go after the scientist."
The denialists do not understand science, but they damn well do understand money and lawyers. It's a pity that in this day and age we have to cater to those who are either still thinking in the stone age, or have pecuniary interests in reality being suppressed, but when the lies they spout are easily provable, it's time to see you in court, denialists, not to prove or disprove the science, but to expose your duplicity.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
WTF is the National Post?
Anyway the people that need to be sued over climate change are the fossil fuel companies.
Yeah, sort of.
But I look at this as a shot across the bow. If denialists want to lie about the research, or misrepresent scientists, they can do so at their own risk. Because the science is a bit harder to get through some folks heads, but duplicity and personal attacks against scientists isn't. And since denialist cherry picking tends to end up in lies, I say speak to them in their own language - money.
50 K against an obscure newspaper isn't much money. But its just showing the end of passivity in the face of duplicity.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Become a president.
No one should be sued.
How can we have an open debate when one side censors the other, through lawsuits, censorship, or even making discussion outright illegal (see Holocaust denial)?
It doesn't matter how ridiculously wrong the other side is. Doesn't matter if they are NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, ISIS, whoever. Let them speak their mind and let the people figure out that their arguments are largely full of shit and let the people reject them on merit. Or, if they choose to, accept them.
Of course, I do agree that global warming is happening, and is at least somewhat a result of human activities. However, this constant censoring of the skeptics gets me angry. Let them present their data and let me research and determine who is right. Rather than just have scientists tell me their stuff is a bunch of baloney and must be censored or it will cause harm.
idk, when you have partisan media spreading actual defamation of people rather than debating on facts, then lawsuits are basically the only way to rein them in. It's especially a problem when the same large corporations have a stake in ALL your countries media, it's rare that you will get the "basic facts" in the first place.
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...
[...] 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>
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. . . .
"I initiated the lawsuit in 2010 after the National Post refused to retract a number of articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held,"
That's is different than attacking someone's faulty science. (If you've looked at the hockey stick "science" you'd be laughing at it too.)
The problem is that there is no data for faulty arguments. In fact, there were no arguments to be faulty. The claim is that the paper just completely made up bullshit and lies.
From the article: Weaver said, "I initiated the lawsuit in 2010 after the National Post refused to retract a number of articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held."
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.
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...
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.
The National Post isn't an obscure paper though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The National Post is a Canadian paper based out of Toronto, and was the flagship paper of PostMedia, one of Canada's major media conglomerates. It is in direct competition with The Globe and Mail (the other major paper title). It used to be a major National title, but its readership dropped off about the same time it started doing strong "partisan" editorials on topics with strong pro-Israeli/anti-muslim content (including the 2006 Iran controversy). In the past decade, they have not been strangers to coloring their reporting, sometimes past the line of believability.
The Video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Jail for deniers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...
Murder:
Comment by Bluecloud
https://twitter.com/RichardTol...
There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.
Death penalty:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.co...
Michael Mann has sued columnist Mark Steyn for mocking the hockey-stick curve.
Wrong. If that were the case, the judge wouldn't have said the following when denying Steyn's motion to dismiss:
For the record, I'm neutral on climate. I trust the scientific method to come up with the truth.
What do you think they've been working on for the past decade and a half (or longer)?
Are you also neutral on quantum mechanics? Gravity? Germ theory? Tell us, oh wise one, what other fields of science do you feel neutral about?
Saying "Its a newspaper" is inadequate - the National Enquirer qualifies, so does the New York Times.
Why is it inadequate? The New York Times has been known -- and not infrequently, I might add -- to publish stories of a quality similar to the National Enquirer. Especially when it comes to climate change, I might also add.
Also, libel and defamation laws in Canada and the UK are very different from those here in the U.S.
Oh, I agree that green groups are annoying in their tactics. I decry the uncivilized tone of all of it. Now, if you want to know who started it, then you have to read some history, and I assure you, there is a lifetime worth of references to read there. (Personally, I spot check about one in every 100 references -- and check more regularly if one fails the sniff test. I find this effective.)
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right