Court: Climate scientist can sue conservative writers over alleged defamation

[SZonian]

An appeals court ruled on Thursday that climate change scientist Michael Mann can sue two conservative writers over allegations that they defamed him.

The case centers on posts written by Rand Simberg in a Competitive Enterprise Institute blog and Mark Steyn on National Review. Among other comments, Simberg called Mann the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science.”

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that a “reasonable jury” could find that the pieces by Simberg and Steyn meet the standard necessary to prove that they illegally defamed Mann.

“Tarnishing the personal integrity and reputation of a scientist important to one side may be a tactic to gain advantage in a no-holds-barred debate over global warming,” Judge Vanessa Ruiz wrote for a three-judge panel.

[excerpted]

http://www.thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311495-court-climate-scientist-can-sue-conservative-writers-over-alleged

[Sanguine]

This bears watching.

Luckily, Steyn is very able to defend himself. 

[geronl]

Again?

seriously this is dumb

[rangerrebew]

I'm certainly no legal eagle but won't the clown bringing the suit have to PROVE global warming is real to get a defamation outcome?

[geronl]

I'm certainly no legal eagle but won't the clown bringing the suit have to PROVE global warming is real to get a defamation outcome?

Not in Canada apparently. Heck in the UK you can tell the truth about someone and he charged with it.

[Doug Loss]

Not in Canada apparently. Heck in the UK you can tell the truth about someone and he charged with it.

This was in D.C.

[Just_Victor]

Steyns own words on the issue here:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/22/news-on-the-mann-vs-steyn-global-warming-hockey-stick-case/

[Oceander]

This has been going on for years. 

[geronl]

This was in D.C.

Mann shouldn't stand a chance in a US court. Steyn already beat his court challenges in Canada

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I remember reading about this case and IMO, Steyn used poor judgement here.


I know that I won't win many friends with that opinion but...


Juries won't find comparison with a child molester very funny.

[geronl]

Juries won't find comparison with a child molester very funny.

Worked for Trump, completely destroyed the Ben Carson campaign who was ahead at the time

[truth_seeker]

And the prize goes to post #10

......for turning a completely unrelated topic, to the Republican President elect

[Hondo69]

Data schmata.  We don't need no stinkin' data.

The main issue with people like Mann (and the EPA) is the data they use to make their predictions (and laws).  As the old saying goes, "crap in, crap out".

When people like Steyn criticize these alarmists they most often do so by pinpoint flaws in the data.  As an example, say an equation consists of 4 parts and 3 of those parts have some basis in fact.  But the 1 remaining party is fuzzy, very fuzzy.  It only takes 1 part of an equation to be fabricated to throw off the entire equation.

That is the basis of most of the arguments against these alarmists.  In the case of the EPA they keep their calculations secret and have even defied demands from Congress to reveal their secrets.

--------

The issue illustrated above begets another problem.  While the quacks and the quack attackers receive all the headlines there are real scientists out there doing real scientific research.  They don't get any headlines, but they do receive death threats.   The upshot is we never get to engage in any sort of real adult conversation on the topic.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm certainly no legal eagle but won't the clown bringing the suit have to PROVE global warming is real to get a defamation outcome?

In a civil suit, it is a preponderance of evidence (AKA "expert opinions") which wins, not a standard of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. While the latter would be difficult to attain (partly because of the bunk the warmists have put up, and partly because they would have to provide hard evidence that wrong had been committed), the former standard is a much lower bar.
Unless the defense attorneys succeed in having the (non cherry picked, non adjusted, non interpolated) evidence provided to the jury (and assuming the jury understands what is being said and doesn't just go glassy-eyed), the likelihood of a favorable verdict is less.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'm certainly no legal eagle but won't the clown bringing the suit have to PROVE global warming is real to get a defamation outcome?

Problem is Mann was compared to a child molester, the suit is not about the merits of AGW in and of itself. Way easier to prove he was defamed wrong as a child molester.

[Smokin Joe]

Problem is Mann was compared to a child molester, the suit is not about the merits of AGW in and of itself. Way easier to prove he was defamed wrong as a child molester.

Comparing him to one and accusing him of being one are two different things.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Comparing him to one and accusing him of being one are two different things.

IMO it was a mistake. Steyn did it in a way that leaves some wriggle room in either direction and a jury will have to decide.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm certainly no legal eagle but won't the clown bringing the suit have to PROVE global warming is real to get a defamation outcome?

Even harder, doesn't one have to prove that warming the earth is actually bad?

[Sanguine]

Quote from: rangerrebew on December 23, 2016, 01:11:03 PM

    I'm certainly no legal eagle but won't the clown bringing the suit have to PROVE global warming is real to get a defamation outcome?

Even harder, doesn't one have to prove that warming the earth is actually bad?

AND, that it's human-caused.

[Smokin Joe]

Even harder, doesn't one have to prove that warming the earth is actually bad?

I think the "Anthropogenic" part is the one that won't pass muster. Certainly, the amount of warming has been far less than projected, in fact there has even been cooling, which is why the spiel went from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". No argument climate changes, but the assertion that humans are the forcing agent has a long way to go to be proven, especially in view of past climate changes.

About the only argument that can be successfully made deals with urban heat islands, and because many of the historical measuring sites have been surrounded by pavement and urbanization, temperature readings in those locations show an (anticipated) upward trend. This, however is a local effect that contributes to measurement error over broader regions, not a function of global climate change.

The number of sites compromised by development is staggering, as a percentage, and this artifact accounts for a portion of apparent warming. One source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/exclusive-noaa-relies-on-compromised-thermometers-that-inflate-u-s-warming-trend/

Another http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html

More info on proper siting and maintenance:http://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1260.pdf

[Hondo69]

I think the "Anthropogenic" part is the one that won't pass muster. Certainly, the amount of warming has been far less than projected, in fact there has even been cooling, which is why the spiel went from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change". No argument climate changes, but the assertion that humans are the forcing agent has a long way to go to be proven, especially in view of past climate changes.

About the only argument that can be successfully made deals with urban heat islands, and because many of the historical measuring sites have been surrounded by pavement and urbanization, temperature readings in those locations show an (anticipated) upward trend. This, however is a local effect that contributes to measurement error over broader regions, not a function of global climate change.

Great points.  And if I published them in the local paper I'd have to move my family out of town due to death threats.

I'm wondering what would be the most harmless, universally acceptable viewpoint on the subject?  Maybe one could say, "I think we can all agree that we must be good custodians of nature".

I just don't know that there is any common ground here.

[Smokin Joe]

Great points.  And if I published them in the local paper I'd have to move my family out of town due to death threats.

I'm wondering what would be the most harmless, universally acceptable viewpoint on the subject?  Maybe one could say, "I think we can all agree that we must be good custodians of nature".

I just don't know that there is any common ground here.

You are dealing with what has become a pseudo religion. It seeks to preserve dynamic systems, only in stasis. That's unnatural.
Yes, climate changes.
Do humans drive that change? (Very little if at all. It is even statistically significant).

[Doug Loss]

You are dealing with what has become a pseudo religion. It seeks to preserve dynamic systems, only in stasis. That's unnatural.
Yes, climate changes.
Do humans drive that change? (Very little if at all. It is even statistically significant).

Pseudo?

[Smokin Joe]

Pseudo?

Yes. There are charlatans playing the 'true believers' for status, wealth and power: Al Gore, for example. Maybe the 'true believers' might see it as a 'religion', but I see dirt worshipers as a cult.

[Doug Loss]

Yes. There are charlatans playing the 'true believers' for status, wealth and power: Al Gore, for example. Maybe the 'true believers' might see it as a 'religion', but I see dirt worshipers as a cult.

Being a cult doesn't preclude it's being an actual religion.  There are true believers and charlatans in every religion, I have no doubt about that at all.