• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mark Steyn Tries (again) to Push the Mann Trial Forward

Threegoofs said:
He's not.

This is a myth peddled by Steyn - Steyn is pretending he wants to move on with the trial, and NRO is a co defendant who is in no hurry - the judge has decided that discovery should proceed jointly, since it makes no sense to do it seperately.

Mann is the one who brought the lawsuit. Its nonsensical that he wants to delay it to get to court because he's afraid of something. If he was afraid, he'd drop the suit and stop incurring legal costs.

But then again, deniers are pretty gullible, so some of them swallow Steyns nuttiness hook, line and sinker.
Click to expand...

Surely his costs are being paid by his employers or some such.

And if he drops the case he will be admitting that he was wrong. That he is a con man. His whole carreer is over.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Surely his costs are being paid by his employers or some such.

And if he drops the case he will be admitting that he was wrong. That he is a con man. His whole carreer is over.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Not sure who can bring libel suits and get their employers to cover it, while you would collect all the damages!

He may be getting money from this organization, which was specifically put into place to defend scientists (or, as one resident denier would say, 'Scientist') from denier attacks like Steyn. Or, as one resident denier would say, 'Scientist'.

You really ARE gullible. Dropping the suit is not an admission of wrongdoing - its an admission that you dont want to continue a libel suit.

His career, of course, is quite sound, being as he has a tenured post and Distinguished Professor title at the best Earth Science Department in the world.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

Not sure who can bring libel suits and get their employers to cover it, while you would collect all the damages!

He may be getting money from this organization, which was specifically put into place to defend scientists (or, as one resident denier would say, 'Scientist') from denier attacks like Steyn. Or, as one resident denier would say, 'Scientist'.

You really ARE gullible. Dropping the suit is not an admission of wrongdoing - its an admission that you dont want to continue a libel suit.

His career, of course, is quite sound, being as he has a tenured post and Distinguished Professor title at the best Earth Science Department in the world.
Click to expand...

Odd to find the best Earth science department at the 252nd best university.

https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-east-anglia-uea
 
Tim the plumber said:

Odd to find the best Earth science department at the 252nd best university.

https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/university-east-anglia-uea
Click to expand...

Actually, just checked - looks like its actually Environmental Science, and its ranking dropped to #2, while a related department inside Earth Sciences is #1.

Its US rankings, but considering the US generally is considered to have the best higher education system in the world, I think its probably pretty close if not at the top.

Rankings | Penn State University

So I guess we could probably go with the term 'one of the best', which doesnt really change my argument at all, of course.
 
Threegoofs said:
It makes damned little difference how you see it... it makes all the difference in terms of how the court sees it.

Actually, it is assumed in this case that the statement is not true, since no one else is actually claiming this except for Steyn.

The issue wont be Mann's research (which obviously is not manipulated data, as dozens of other studies have followed his using independent means basically confirming the results), it will be the actual damage to Mann for the obviously libelous comments.

The court has made this clear - especially since previous investigations on Mann showed no evidence of wrongdoing:

"Because the university and other investigations failed to find evidence of scientific misconduct on Mann’s part, the court declared that claims Mann engaged in such action were “definitively discredited.” On that basis, it concluded, “a jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants ‘in fact entertained serious doubts’ or had a ‘high degree of awareness’ that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted ‘with reckless disregard’ for the statements’ truth when they were published.” This is a troubling conclusion."

Steyn and you deniers are living in the fantasy that science will be put on trial here, but in reality, what will be put on trial is the ability of loathsome people to make defamatory comments in public about scientists.
Click to expand...

Mann is claiming that Steyn's statements are untrue and therefore libelous,
Mann must prove that the statements are untrue.
In spite of Steyn's inflationary rhetoric, he in essence was saying the Michael Mann manipulated
the data sets to arrive at the hockey stick.
Since Mann's own publication describe how they eliminated more recent tree ring data from the set,
He did in fact manipulate the data set.
The case in not about if Mann did any thing wrong, simply did he manipulate the data sets.
 
longview said:
Mann is claiming that Steyn's statements are untrue and therefore libelous,
Mann must prove that the statements are untrue.
In spite of Steyn's inflationary rhetoric, he in essence was saying the Michael Mann manipulated
the data sets to arrive at the hockey stick.
Since Mann's own publication describe how they eliminated more recent tree ring data from the set,
He did in fact manipulate the data set.
The case in not about if Mann did any thing wrong, simply did he manipulate the data sets.
Click to expand...

No.

If I call you an idiot and you then sue me, the burden of proof is not on you to prove you are not an idiot, it's on me to provide evidence that you are, indeed an idiot.

But aside from that, if the court has clearly indicated that your lack of idiocy has already been ascertained via other sources, the issue is about the damage i have done to your reputation and not the existence or non existence of your blithering idiocy.
 
longview said:
I see it differently, Mann initiated the slander lawsuit, saying Steyn besmirched His character.
Mann has to show that the statement was not true.
Click to expand...

Threegoofs said:
It makes damned little difference how you see it... it makes all the difference in terms of how the court sees it.

Actually, it is assumed in this case that the statement is not true, since no one else is actually claiming this except for Steyn.

The issue wont be Mann's research (which obviously is not manipulated data, as dozens of other studies have followed his using independent means basically confirming the results), it will be the actual damage to Mann for the obviously libelous comments.

The court has made this clear - especially since previous investigations on Mann showed no evidence of wrongdoing:

"Because the university and other investigations failed to find evidence of scientific misconduct on Mann’s part, the court declared that claims Mann engaged in such action were “definitively discredited.” On that basis, it concluded, “a jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants ‘in fact entertained serious doubts’ or had a ‘high degree of awareness’ that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted ‘with reckless disregard’ for the statements’ truth when they were published.” This is a troubling conclusion."

Steyn and you deniers are living in the fantasy that science will be put on trial here, but in reality, what will be put on trial is the ability of loathsome people to make defamatory comments in public about scientists.
Click to expand...

That's one reason why Steyn published his book. All the derogatory comments about MM from fellow scientists will be useful. As will the dozens of briefs filed on Steyn's behalf by the ACLU, et al.
 
Threegoofs said:
No.

If I call you an idiot and you then sue me, the burden of proof is not on you to prove you are not an idiot, it's on me to provide evidence that you are, indeed an idiot.

But aside from that, if the court has clearly indicated that your lack of idiocy has already been ascertained via other sources, the issue is about the damage i have done to your reputation and not the existence or non existence of your blithering idiocy.
Click to expand...
I guess we will see, if this ever actually goes to court.
Since Mann did in fact manipulate the data sets, it would be perjury for him to say he did not under oath.
 
Threegoofs said:
Actually, just checked - looks like its actually Environmental Science, and its ranking dropped to #2, while a related department inside Earth Sciences is #1.

Its US rankings, but considering the US generally is considered to have the best higher education system in the world, I think its probably pretty close if not at the top.

Rankings | Penn State University

So I guess we could probably go with the term 'one of the best', which doesnt really change my argument at all, of course.
Click to expand...

I have just looked up the entry requirements for taking a degree in climate science at this prestigious university ranked 252nd in the world.

They are indeed difficult;

UCAS Search tool - Climate Change - Entry requirements

Specific subjects/grades required for entry: Geography.
Specific subjects excluded for entry: General Studies and Critical Thinking.
Information: AAB including Geography. If applicant is taking 4 A-Levels the typical offer is ABBB including Geography. Science A-levels must include a pass in the practical element.
Click to expand...

So you have to get a A in geography. A test of essay writing and the rest is what ever you want it to be. No requirement for maths or physics. Media studies and art history will do nicely thank you.

Hardly the most demanding out there.
 
[h=2]Tim Ball wins — Andrew Weaver drops libel case after 7 years[/h]
Great news (though how low is our bar, that it’s “great” that after seven long expensive years Tim Ball can speak freely?). As reported on WUWT: Tim Ball’s free-speech victory over Andrew Weaver – all charges dismissed!
Anthony Watts: I got word tonight from David Ball, son of Dr. Tim Ball via Facebook messenger:
This morning the judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
​
Andrew Weaver launched the suit in 2011.
In 2014 Ezra Levant’s wrote: “Silencing Critics instead of debating them”
Weaver sued climatologist Dr. Tim Ball for, amongst other things, saying Weaver was “lacking a basic understanding of climate science,” according to a glowing New York Times article, cheering on his SLAPP suit.
Seriously? Suing someone, in a court of law, for saying you don’t understand global warming? This from a scholar, an academic, a teacher? And now a politician – an opposition politician, no less. Weaver is now a Green Party MLA in British Columbia, someone who hurls insults as part of his job description.
That’s not what true academics do. That’s not what politicians do – especially opposition politicians. Andrew Weaver is acting like a thug, not a scholar or a public servant. He is trying to censor and punish his enemies, not debate his opponents.
And from DeSmog in 2011 — all the prescience we’ve come to expect:

The suit arises from an article that Ball penned for the right-wingy Canada Free Press website, which has since apologized to Weaver for its numerous inaccuracies and stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.
Ball, famously slow to notice the obvious, apparently didn’t realize that he was overmatched.
–Richard Littlemore, Feb 4th, 2011 at DeSmog Blog:

Congratulations to Tim Ball today, but most of all, a big thank you. Thanks for taking the harder road. We, all of us who value free speech, are sorry you had to do it, but so grateful you did.
See also Tim Balls Blog (though there is no announcement there yet).
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Tim Ball wins — Andrew Weaver drops libel case after 7 years[/h]
Great news (though how low is our bar, that it’s “great” that after seven long expensive years Tim Ball can speak freely?). As reported on WUWT: Tim Ball’s free-speech victory over Andrew Weaver – all charges dismissed!
Anthony Watts: I got word tonight from David Ball, son of Dr. Tim Ball via Facebook messenger:
This morning the judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
​
Andrew Weaver launched the suit in 2011.
In 2014 Ezra Levant’s wrote: “Silencing Critics instead of debating them”
Weaver sued climatologist Dr. Tim Ball for, amongst other things, saying Weaver was “lacking a basic understanding of climate science,” according to a glowing New York Times article, cheering on his SLAPP suit.
Seriously? Suing someone, in a court of law, for saying you don’t understand global warming? This from a scholar, an academic, a teacher? And now a politician – an opposition politician, no less. Weaver is now a Green Party MLA in British Columbia, someone who hurls insults as part of his job description.
That’s not what true academics do. That’s not what politicians do – especially opposition politicians. Andrew Weaver is acting like a thug, not a scholar or a public servant. He is trying to censor and punish his enemies, not debate his opponents.
And from DeSmog in 2011 — all the prescience we’ve come to expect:

The suit arises from an article that Ball penned for the right-wingy Canada Free Press website, which has since apologized to Weaver for its numerous inaccuracies and stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.
Ball, famously slow to notice the obvious, apparently didn’t realize that he was overmatched.
–Richard Littlemore, Feb 4th, 2011 at DeSmog Blog:

Congratulations to Tim Ball today, but most of all, a big thank you. Thanks for taking the harder road. We, all of us who value free speech, are sorry you had to do it, but so grateful you did.
See also Tim Balls Blog (though there is no announcement there yet).
Click to expand...

The hilarious thing about this is that the reason the lawsuit was dismissed was because TIM BALL WASNT CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO MATTER!

LOL.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/1...-take-seriously?amp&__twitter_impression=true

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has dismissed a libel action against “climate change sceptic” Dr. Tim Ball on the basis that Ball’s writing is not sufficiently credible to inflict damage on the reputation of a professional climate scientist.
Click to expand...

Hilarious.

I’ll note...Tim Ball is a frequent WUWT contributor.

The quotes in the legal documents from the judge are particularly scathing. No wonder Watts didn’t post any links to the judgement!
 
Last edited:
A priceless quote from the judge:

“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”
 
Threegoofs said:
The hilarious thing about this is that the reason the lawsuit was dismissed was because TIM BALL WASNT CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO MATTER!

LOL.

Judge Dismisses Libel Claim, Climate 'Sceptic' Tim Ball Not Credible Enough To Take Seriously | DeSmogBlog



Hilarious.

I’ll note...Tim Ball is a frequent WUWT contributor.

The quotes in the legal documents from the judge are particularly scathing. No wonder Watts didn’t post any links to the judgement!
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed the point.

Tim Ball’s Victory in the First Climate Lawsuit Judgment – The Backstory

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball I am extremely grateful for the judgment of a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against me by Andrew Weaver. It is a victory for free speech and a blow against the use of the law to silence people.
Continue reading →s

. . . From the judgment, available online here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
The link also includes the original article by Dr. Ball, which spurred the lawsuit, under Appendix A. Here are some relevant excerpts from the court document.
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.
…
[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.
[83] In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.
[84] Given this finding, I need not consider whether Dr. Weaver has established that the Article was published in the sense that it was downloaded and read in BC by anyone other than him. I also need not address the defences raised by Dr. Ball.
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.
​

 
Jack Hays said:
You seem to have missed the point.

Tim Ball’s Victory in the First Climate Lawsuit Judgment – The Backstory

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball I am extremely grateful for the judgment of a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against me by Andrew Weaver. It is a victory for free speech and a blow against the use of the law to silence people.
Continue reading →s

. . . From the judgment, available online here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
The link also includes the original article by Dr. Ball, which spurred the lawsuit, under Appendix A. Here are some relevant excerpts from the court document.
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.
…
[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.
[83] In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.
[84] Given this finding, I need not consider whether Dr. Weaver has established that the Article was published in the sense that it was downloaded and read in BC by anyone other than him. I also need not address the defences raised by Dr. Ball.
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.
​
Click to expand...

The point was clear. The judge says the writing was so poorly written and the source so weak, no one in his right mind could take it seriously!

Except for... guys like you!
 
Threegoofs said:
The point was clear. The judge says the writing was so poorly written and the source so weak, no one in his right mind could take it seriously!

Except for... guys like you!
Click to expand...

It's obvious the judge was not sympathetic to Ball, but he affirmed the critical free speech right without which skepticism cannot survive. For skeptics, this was a strategic victory.


[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. . . .
 
Threegoofs said:
A priceless quote from the judge:

“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”
Click to expand...

Odd that Andrew Weaver needed to sue then.
 
Threegoofs said:
A priceless quote from the judge:

“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”
Click to expand...

Ha, ha, that's hilarious! So the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that only a few stupid or ill-informed people would be daft enough to take Dr. Tim Ball's comments seriously. But according to Jack, that's a strategic victory for the "sceptics"! :lamo
 
Surface Detail said:
Ha, ha, that's hilarious! So the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that only a few stupid or ill-informed people would be daft enough to take Dr. Tim Ball's comments seriously. But according to Jack, that's a strategic victory for the "sceptics"! :lamo
Click to expand...

You can continue to reside within your closed echo chamber if you wish, but reality will eventually catch up.
 
[h=2]Tim Ball wins — Andrew Weaver case dismissed after 7 years[/h]
Great news (though how low is our bar, that it’s “great” that after seven long expensive years Tim Ball can speak freely?). As reported on WUWT: Tim Ball’s free-speech victory over Andrew Weaver – all charges dismissed!
Anthony Watts: I got word tonight from David Ball, son of Dr. Tim Ball via Facebook messenger:
This morning the judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
​
Andrew Weaver launched the suit in 2011.
In 2014 Ezra Levant’s wrote: “Silencing Critics instead of debating them”
Weaver sued climatologist Dr. Tim Ball for, amongst other things, saying Weaver was “lacking a basic understanding of climate science,” according to a glowing New York Times article, cheering on his SLAPP suit.
Seriously? Suing someone, in a court of law, for saying you don’t understand global warming? This from a scholar, an academic, a teacher? And now a politician – an opposition politician, no less. Weaver is now a Green Party MLA in British Columbia, someone who hurls insults as part of his job description.
That’s not what true academics do. That’s not what politicians do – especially opposition politicians. Andrew Weaver is acting like a thug, not a scholar or a public servant. He is trying to censor and punish his enemies, not debate his opponents.
And from DeSmog in 2011 — all the prescience we’ve come to expect:

The suit arises from an article that Ball penned for the right-wingy Canada Free Press website, which has since apologized to Weaver for its numerous inaccuracies and stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.
Ball, famously slow to notice the obvious, apparently didn’t realize that he was overmatched.
–Richard Littlemore, Feb 4th, 2011 at DeSmog Blog:

Congratulations to Tim Ball today, but most of all, a big thank you. Thanks for taking the harder road. We, all of us who value free speech, are sorry you had to do it, but so grateful you did.
See also Tim Balls Blog (though there is no announcement there yet).
 
Jack Hays said:
You can continue to reside within your closed echo chamber if you wish, but reality will eventually catch up.
Click to expand...

IronyMeterSplode.jpg
 
As usual, Judith Curry sees the important points.

Update: libel cases and the ‘climate wars’

Posted on February 14, 2018 | 27 comments
by Judith Curry
Big news in the world of ‘climate wars’ – the libel case of Andrew Weaver versus Tim Ball has been dismissed by the judge — for a rather surprising reason.
Continue reading →

. . . Weaver vs Ball is a sideshow to the main events of Michael Mann’s lawsuits against Tim Ball, Rand Simberg, National Review and Mark Steyn. For background on these lawsuits, see these previous posts:

The suits involving Simberg, Steyn and National Review seem hopelessly mired in delays in DC courts. The Mann vs Ball case will also be tried in the Canadian court system, and presumably will move forward (somewhat) more quickly.
If the same reasoning in the Weaver versus Ball case prevails, then I would expect a similar outcome in Mann versus Ball.
How would this reasoning play out in the Mann versus Steyn et al. lawsuits? Steyn and Simberg (who are not scientists) made comments about Mann that were intended to be humorous and clever in the context of political satire, rather than seriously argued professional assessments of Mann’s research.
Under this ruling, it seems that carefully argued statements against an individual or an argument are required for damage? Even mores if the statements are made by an expert?
I have made this point before: Mann’s libelous statements about me (because he is a scientist with many awards) are far more serious than say Rand Simberg’s statements about Mann.
Mark Jacobsen’s lawsuit against scientists and PNAS who published a rebuttal of his paper definitely meets the requirement of damage to his reputation, but it isn’t libel if the statements are correct or at least justified by evidence and arguments.
It seems that the following reasoning should apply to these lawsuits:

  1. assess whether there was any reputational or financial damage incurred by the litigant
  2. assess whether the statement in question is well argued and/or ‘true’
  3. assess whether the defendant in the litigation has sufficient reputation or standing to influence public opinion on the topic of the litigation.
The instinct of the defendants in these cases has been to address #2. It is arguably more important and effective defense to address #1 and #3. . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
As usual, Judith Curry sees the important points.

Update: libel cases and the ‘climate wars’

[FONT=&]Posted on February 14, 2018 | 27 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Big news in the world of ‘climate wars’ – the libel case of Andrew Weaver versus Tim Ball has been dismissed by the judge — for a rather surprising reason.
Continue reading →

. . . Weaver vs Ball is a sideshow to the main events of Michael Mann’s lawsuits against Tim Ball, Rand Simberg, National Review and Mark Steyn. For background on these lawsuits, see these previous posts:

The suits involving Simberg, Steyn and National Review seem hopelessly mired in delays in DC courts. The Mann vs Ball case will also be tried in the Canadian court system, and presumably will move forward (somewhat) more quickly.
If the same reasoning in the Weaver versus Ball case prevails, then I would expect a similar outcome in Mann versus Ball.
How would this reasoning play out in the Mann versus Steyn et al. lawsuits? Steyn and Simberg (who are not scientists) made comments about Mann that were intended to be humorous and clever in the context of political satire, rather than seriously argued professional assessments of Mann’s research.
Under this ruling, it seems that carefully argued statements against an individual or an argument are required for damage? Even mores if the statements are made by an expert?
I have made this point before: Mann’s libelous statements about me (because he is a scientist with many awards) are far more serious than say Rand Simberg’s statements about Mann.
Mark Jacobsen’s lawsuit against scientists and PNAS who published a rebuttal of his paper definitely meets the requirement of damage to his reputation, but it isn’t libel if the statements are correct or at least justified by evidence and arguments.
It seems that the following reasoning should apply to these lawsuits:

  1. assess whether there was any reputational or financial damage incurred by the litigant
  2. assess whether the statement in question is well argued and/or ‘true’
  3. assess whether the defendant in the litigation has sufficient reputation or standing to influence public opinion on the topic of the litigation.
The instinct of the defendants in these cases has been to address #2. It is arguably more important and effective defense to address #1 and #3. . . .
Click to expand...


Seems like she agrees that the defendants were too stupid to be taken seriously.

But we see that the followers of these idiots (Ball, Steyn, Watts) seem to be missing the point that they are too stupid to be taken seriously.
 
Jack Hays said:
As usual, Judith Curry sees the important points.

Update: libel cases and the ‘climate wars’

[FONT=&]Posted on February 14, 2018 | 27 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Big news in the world of ‘climate wars’ – the libel case of Andrew Weaver versus Tim Ball has been dismissed by the judge — for a rather surprising reason.
Continue reading →

. . . Weaver vs Ball is a sideshow to the main events of Michael Mann’s lawsuits against Tim Ball, Rand Simberg, National Review and Mark Steyn. For background on these lawsuits, see these previous posts:

The suits involving Simberg, Steyn and National Review seem hopelessly mired in delays in DC courts. The Mann vs Ball case will also be tried in the Canadian court system, and presumably will move forward (somewhat) more quickly.
If the same reasoning in the Weaver versus Ball case prevails, then I would expect a similar outcome in Mann versus Ball.
How would this reasoning play out in the Mann versus Steyn et al. lawsuits? Steyn and Simberg (who are not scientists) made comments about Mann that were intended to be humorous and clever in the context of political satire, rather than seriously argued professional assessments of Mann’s research.
Under this ruling, it seems that carefully argued statements against an individual or an argument are required for damage? Even mores if the statements are made by an expert?
I have made this point before: Mann’s libelous statements about me (because he is a scientist with many awards) are far more serious than say Rand Simberg’s statements about Mann.
Mark Jacobsen’s lawsuit against scientists and PNAS who published a rebuttal of his paper definitely meets the requirement of damage to his reputation, but it isn’t libel if the statements are correct or at least justified by evidence and arguments.
It seems that the following reasoning should apply to these lawsuits:

  1. assess whether there was any reputational or financial damage incurred by the litigant
  2. assess whether the statement in question is well argued and/or ‘true’
  3. assess whether the defendant in the litigation has sufficient reputation or standing to influence public opinion on the topic of the litigation.
The instinct of the defendants in these cases has been to address #2. It is arguably more important and effective defense to address #1 and #3. . . .
Click to expand...

Mann’s libelous statements about me (because he is a scientist with many awards) are far more serious than say Rand Simberg’s statements about Mann.
Click to expand...

Then she should consider sueing.
 
Threegoofs said:
Seems like she agrees that the defendants were too stupid to be taken seriously.

But we see that the followers of these idiots (Ball, Steyn, Watts) seem to be missing the point that they are too stupid to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

And again you missed the point.

Steyn and Simberg (who are not scientists) made comments about Mann that were intended to be humorous and clever in the context of political satire, rather than seriously argued professional assessments of Mann’s research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom