• 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

Jack Hays said:
She (unlike Mann) does not believe scientific differences should be settled in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

Millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.

This is done in the name of combating global warming. We all know it is of no value what so ever but whilst the AGW doom cult lives it will give cover to this crime against humanity.

The pleasant idea that accademic pursuits are outside politics is plain stupid.

The issue of lying and calling it science needs to be settled in a court.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Millions of people die each year due to the use of food as fuel.

This is done in the name of combating global warming. We all know it is of no value what so ever but whilst the AGW doom cult lives it will give cover to this crime against humanity.

The pleasant idea that accademic pursuits are outside politics is plain stupid.

The issue of lying and calling it science needs to be settled in a court.
Click to expand...

We'll have to disagree.
 
Jack Hays said:
We'll have to disagree.
Click to expand...

Those that make the policy decisions are not scientists. They ar politicians. These politicians have lots of competing pressures on them. They do not make decisions based on clear accademic logic of the pure question in front of them. The need to bash them over the head with it is required.

Or millions keep dying.
 
Jack Hays said:
Perhaps a straw in the wind?

Climate News
[h=1]BREAKING: Tim Ball’s free-speech victory over Andrew Weaver – all charges dismissed![/h]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. At the moment, I have no other details, but will update as…
Click to expand...

The statement is absolutely correct:

"We now have a generation (30 years) of people teaching, researching, or running government that has little knowledge because of lack of fundamental education. Because of them, the public is ill informed, don’t understand the problem, and don‘t know the questions to ask. Correcting the education process will take time because there are insufficient people with the knowledge or expertise. Correcting and widening the research functions will take longer because of removing or re-educating current personnel and a lack of qualified replacements. Even if achieved, success is unlikely. There is the massive problem of inadequate data."

The people teaching, researching, and making regulations are using assumptions as facts. The sciences are not known well enough.

I found the retracted article in a blog:

new research findings two: Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years
 
Jack Hays said:
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. . . .
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

When I use to listened to talk radio, I heard Dr. Ball a great deal. He is absolutely correct in everything he says. He is careful to separate belief from the known and unknown.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Absolutely.

When I use to listened to talk radio, I heard Dr. Ball a great deal. He is absolutely correct in everything he says. He is careful to separate belief from the known and unknown.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, given what the judge said in his extraordinary decision:

“Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views...”
 
Citing Mann’s legal case against Steyn, Jacobsen throws in the towel on defamation case

Via the Volokh Conspiracy: Jacobson Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Against Other Scientists After an initial hearing, Stanford’s Mark Jacobson thinks better of pursuing a scientific disagreement in court. Jonathan H. Adler Jonathan H. Adler Last fall, Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson sued several researchers and the National Academy of Sciences over the publication of a paper critical of…

" . . . The irony here is, Mann, the plaintiff, is the one who’s been dragging his feet. He doesn’t want to go to court, because he knows he will lose, and lose big, as I suspect Jacobsen finally realized. Mann’s lawsuit has always been about “the process is the punishment”, not winning. . . ."

 
“Are the Words Defamatory?
[65] In his notice of civil claim, Dr. Weaver alleges the following inferential meanings of the impugned words set out in the Article:
a) He is not competent or qualified to teach climate science to university students;
b) He cheated Canadian taxpayers by accepting public funding for climate science research although he has little or no knowledge about climate science;
c) In the meeting in his office with Dr. Ball, he displayed symptoms of paranoia because he fears his incompetence, lack of academic qualifications and corrupt exploitation of the Canadian taxpayer will be exposed;
d) He bribed university students with research funds so they would participate in useless computer modeling studies which had little scientific value, with the objective of continuing to receive unwarranted personal financial benefit from government funding;
e) He dishonestly claimed on his website to be a “climatologist” but removed that claim when challenged by Dr. Ball;
f) He shuns involvement in public debate about global warming because it would publicly expose his professional incompetence, his inadequate knowledge about climate science, and his corrupt exploitation of public resources;
g) He shamefully conspired to have his students interrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation at UVIC in order to suppress the truth by preventing honest and open debate about the existence of global warming and/or whether humans are causing or contributing to global warming;
h) He shamefully conspired with his students to deter people from attending Dr. Ball’s UVIC presentation in order to stifle Dr. Ball’s views and prevent people from learning that his views on global warming have no scientific basis;
i) He teaches his students little or nothing about climate science because he lacks the requisite knowledge, does not have academic qualifications, is nothing more than a computer technician, and is blinded by personal bias;
j) He knows that the reports of the IPCC concerning global warming are unscientific and corrupt, and is therefore dishonestly trying to dodge personal responsibility for his involvement in those reports by dissociating himself from the IPCC; and
k) He dishonestly obtained substantial public funding from Environment Canada for climate science research despite knowing that he lacked the necessary education, training, and intelligence to carry on competent research.

[66] I agree with Dr. Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver are extreme and are not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking reader. This requires the court to assess the words objectively, and not to attribute the worst possible meaning or the meaning that might appear to the plaintiff or a person with an overly fragile sensibility (Color Your World, at para. 15).

[67] Specifically, I do not accept that the Article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness. For example, despite the inferential meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver, there is no allegation, explicit or implicit, that Dr. Weaver cheated taxpayers, dishonestly obtained public funding or shamefully conspired with his students to disrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation to suppress Dr. Ball’s views.
 
Any news on this?

I think I already know the answer; Mann has ran away......

But just asking.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Any news on this?

I think I already know the answer; Mann has ran away......

But just asking.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Clearly the guy who is actively pursuing a lawsuit is obviously the one ‘running away’.

Your seductive reasoning skills approaches your brilliance in scientific analysis.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes.

Clearly the guy who is actively pursuing a lawsuit is obviously the one ‘running away’.

Your seductive reasoning skills approaches your brilliance in scientific analysis.
Click to expand...

It may be that the judges realized they made a mistake in letting the lawsuit go forward.

[h=3]Whatever Happened to Michael Mann's Defamation Suit (2018 edition ...[/h]https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/11/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defam



Feb 11, 2018 - [Herewith is another post wondering what has happened with Mann v. NR, et al., repeating (with a few updates) what I posted last fall.] In 2012, climate scientist Michael Mann filed a defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg over a ...
 
Jack Hays said:
It may be that the judges realized they made a mistake in letting the lawsuit go forward.

[h=3]Whatever Happened to Michael Mann's Defamation Suit (2018 edition ...[/h]https://reason.com/volokh/2018/02/11/whatever-happened-to-michael-manns-defam



Feb 11, 2018 - [Herewith is another post wondering what has happened with Mann v. NR, et al., repeating (with a few updates) what I posted last fall.] In 2012, climate scientist Michael Mann filed a defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg over a ...
Click to expand...

Yes, but the judges didn’t say anything because that’s how the law works. [emoji849]
 
Meanwhile, Mann's allies lose after seven years.

[FONT=&quot]Climategate[/FONT]
[h=1]‘Climategate 4’ email dump about to happen – Mann’s cohorts lose in court[/h]Court ruling requires Regents to turn over climate emails by UA researchers By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services PHOENIX — An organization that questions the role of humans in climate change is going to get access to the emails and records of work done by two scientists at the University of Arizona in its bid…
 
Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, Mann's allies lose after seven years.

[FONT=&quot]Climategate[/FONT]
[h=1]‘Climategate 4’ email dump about to happen – Mann’s cohorts lose in court[/h]Court ruling requires Regents to turn over climate emails by UA researchers By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services PHOENIX — An organization that questions the role of humans in climate change is going to get access to the emails and records of work done by two scientists at the University of Arizona in its bid…
Click to expand...

Always nice to intimidate working scientists.

No surprise you’re egging it on.
 
Threegoofs said:
Really?

You’re totally fine sending other peoples private correspondence to me?

You clearly haven’t thought they the consequences.
Click to expand...

What adverse consequences for me would there be if I publicised your PM's to me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom