The National Post has been conducting it's own war on science. Now Andrew Weaver, one of the scientists they have attacked, is fighting back and suing them for defamation. The press release from Weaver's lawyer says:
University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, launched a lawsuit today in BC Supreme Court against three writers at the National Post (and the newspaper as a whole), over a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.
In a statement released at the same time the suit was filed, Dr. Weaver said, "I asked The National Post to do the right thing - to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused."
Dr. Weaver's statement of claim not only asks for a Court injunction requiring The National Post to remove all of the false allegations from its Internet websites, but also seeks an unprecedented Court order requiring the newspaper to assist Dr. Weaver in removing the defamatory National Post articles from the many other Internet sites where they have been re-posted.
"If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the Internet forever. They'll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming," said Weaver.
The suit names Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, columnist Peter Foster, reporter Kevin Libin and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as several still-unidentified editors and copy editors. It seeks general, aggravated damages, special and exemplary damages and legal costs in relation to articles by Foster on December 9, 2009 ("Weaver's Web"), Corcoran on December 10, 2009 ("Weaver's Web II") and January 27, 2010 ("Climate Agency going up in flames"), and Libin on February 2, 2010 ("So much for pure science").
Desmogblog has Weaver's 48 page Statement of Claim.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Yes! I've been agitating for more of this because defamation laws cover attacks on people and institutions, but not on science itself.
So, in eh right circumstances, this flood of defamation might just boomerang...
I for one will love to see whether a court of law can finally set a precedent by making a media organisation responsible for untruths they print, and the consequences.
If only because it will make other news outlets who are just plain careless instead of malicious (and there are so many of them) do some actual fact-checking before stories go to air / print.
Some of the anonymous commenters are included in the lawsuit and the nasty remarks they made; nice to see some of them brought to account.
My guess it will be only a matter of hours before we hear accusations of "fascist climate scientists attack freedom of the press".
Others may point out that in the US at least, Fox News was found to have a First Amendment right to broadcast material it knew to be false. Which is kind of stunning - not so much that it exists, but that Fox News went to court to assert its right to lie.
How can the community get behind Andrew Weaver financially to ensure that he receives a fair treatment in court?
Nice to see the whoppers finally being called...
[Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.p…) beat me to the comment about Faux News. I wonder though how such would stand up in the light of the comments by [Holly Stick](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…), [Mark Francis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…), and [Fran Barlow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/johann_hari_on_journalismgate.p…) on the Johann Hari thread.
It will be an interesting case indeed.
While I'm as keen to take a swing at Fox as anyone, and it's fun to be able to thrwo this one at them, the right to lie is a subset of the right to free speech.
If one requires that people not lie in making claims, then the government could tie up people in vexatious court cases. The right to utter complete tosh with something like impunity from criminal charge most of the time is important.
OTOH, even we pass over the civil law it is not the case that people have free speech anyway. Lots of restrictions apply -- fiduciary duty, privacy, national security, pornography, insider trading etc ... Even telling truthful things is restricted.
Maybe Fox could be told that although they can lie to their heart's content, they have to say when they are lying explicitly for those too stupid to figure out that if it's on Fox it is almost certainly bogus.
Fran.
It would be instructive to see if the 'right to lie' is deemed the same as the right to deceive.
Aside from that, I doubt that a right to lie gives one the right to libelousness.
Hide the Decline 2 has now been pulled by Google.
'The video was posted on YouTube until Wednesday afternoon, when the Google-owned video site removed the video, citing non-existent copyright claims by Jib Jab as the reason.
The video was produced in response to a cease and desist demand from Michael Mannâs attorney over an older video produced by Minnesotans for Global Warming.
The original Hide the Decline video they created used some Jib Jab-provided animation, under their general license and with their expressed written consent, but the new video, recently removed by YouTube contains no such content.'
I believe this will be the key point.
As Fran said, the right to free speech is not unfettered and does not immunise all speech free from other legal impacts (e.g. in the US falsely "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" causing panic is a widely quoted example).
el gordo,
it's interesting to see the temper tantrum thrown over censorship at WUWT. Especially so, if one recalls Anthony having asked youtube to take down another video, that we all know ...
Laws differ from country to country, but generally speaking it's OK to say "The sky is green" but not "Professor X says the sky is blue but don't believe him, he's a liar", especially if you know damn well - or should know - that the sky is blue and professor X is as honest as the day is long.
http://reason.com/archives/2004/07/29/jabbing-jibjab
I don't quite see why you think the Post has been conducting a war on science.
It has been conducting a war on one particular scientific hypothesis, AGW. But as far as I recall, it has never attacked science in general, nor has it even, particularly, attacked any other hypotheses.
We do not, for instance, find it objecting to probability theory, or statistics, or experimental method.... etc. What we find it that it thinks that the science does not support the AGW hypothesis.
I don't see this as a war on, or anti, science.
Very interesting, and I hope he wins this hands down - it would make an excellent precedent and hopefully serve as a deterrent against some of the frankly disgraceful behavior we have seen in recent months.
Shorter Michel: The Post has not been conducting a war on all science, therefore the Post has not been conducting a war on any science.
Michel,
Your comment (#16) is frankly dumb (sorry to be so blunt).
Of course the Post is attacking science. That is unless the Post is staffed by climate scientists who have worked in the field for years, which somehow I doubt. Otherwise why is it that the Post, as well as other right wing media sources and corporate funded think tanks are almost in unanimous agreement over this issue, and in one voice are arguing that AGW is either a myth or is due to natural variability? The bottom line is that they do not want anything to be done about it that may limit the profit margins of the multinational corporations that support or own them.
The relevant question you have to ask the Post is exactly why they do not think the science supports the hypothesis of AGW? I am sure that the Post also does not support the broader argument that humans are having a strongly deleterious effect upon biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems which is important because humans benefit on the basis of regulating services emerging from natural systems. This is in spite of the fact that I am sure that very, very few writers in the corporate media understand even the basics of environmental science. But they know where their 'bread is buttered'. So they are hostile to any science in the environmental arena that suggests we ought to do something to alleviate the potential consequences.
The reason that the Post does not question probability theory or statistics is that ther is no econoimic cost in supporting these theories; on the other hand, in the environmental areana there are costs of dealing with the deleterious effects of human activities on the environment in the form of regulations (see my first paragraph again). In this regard the right wing media speak with a unified voice: don't rock the boat. Don't do anything that might reduce profit margins.
The fact is that many in the corporate media do not give a damn about the science. In fact, they spend a lot of effort trying to debunk the science that they hate (and which they do not understand). So of course this is part of a corporate war against science.
'The fact is that many in the corporate media do not give a damn about the science. In fact, they spend a lot of effort trying to debunk the science...'
For decades the msm has been pushing AGW very effectively, without criticism. This has been pure folly, but lately they have decided to take a more critical view.
There is no right wing conspiracy, the changing contours of the media landscape can lead to different patterns of agenda setting and to different degrees of openness and closure, the types of discourse and range of opinions represented.
Most of the media are still supporting AGW theory, so I don't know what you're moaning about.
el gordo: "For decades the msm has been pushing AGW very effectively, without criticism."
Errr.... riiight. Denialism in the media has been coming and going for at least two decades now and every time it goes on the rise, someone always comes out with something like that. People like to believe that there has been some sort of sudden revelation that will turn the AGW opinion tide, in doing so forgetting all the previous false dawns and the fact that over the years, the denialist case has been getting progressively more feeble.
Actually, I dont think that's quite the case. The argument is closer to "Professor X says the sky is green! How can you trust such a liar?" When the Professor has not said that the sky was green.
good. very good.
freedom of speech does not include the right to smear others with false claims.
Gordo,
The media has done everything but support the broad scientific consensus on AGW. Controversy sells; consensus doesn't. This is why more often than not an article about a new peer-reviewed study supporting AGW in the pages of Nature or Science often features an interview with the scientist who wrote the piece juztaposed with the dissenting voice of a contrarian - more often than not someone employed as an 'adjunct scholar' or an 'expert' at a right wing think tank who has never published an article in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change and who has no formal qualifications in the field.
If truth be told, the MSM's performance on climate change has been pitiful. This explains why so many members of the general public are dubious about the scientific basis of it. The recent furore over what are in truth pedantic errors in the last IPCC draft is a case in point. But little is made by the media of the lies and outright deceit of many of the deniers. The media has in fact acted as an echo chamber for the denial lobby.
el gordo:
> the changing contours of the media landscape can lead to different patterns of agenda setting and to different degrees of openness and closure,
And of course, the SwiftHack e-mails just wanted to be free, so they simply, like, set themselves free in a sort of act of nature. And Climate Depot was merely created and designed by Swiftboater Marc Morano born naturally as a sort of organically formed grassroots movement. And when Tom Harris called for "information sharing" and "coordinated local activism", he was merely describing an existing phenomenon in nature.
And I'm sure, el gordo himself is also merely an emergent property of the "changing contours of the media landscape", rather than a conscious individual making the conscious choice to pump out inactivist linkspam.
Understand that freedom of speech is really about being able to speak without government shutting you down. It is not about being able to speak without consequence in all cases. You can publish criticisms concerning the Prime Minister of Canada -- that screw up!(*) -- and not fear the Government of Canada suing you for libel; however, Stephen Harper (Canada's PM) can certainly name you as a defendant in a libel suit he files as an individual. Heck, he's done it before.
In Canada, libel is a tort between identifiable private persons, and is not subject to constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression as Canada's constitutional documents are in essence a contract between government and its people, not between legal persons. This is true to varying extents in democracies throughout the world.
Anyone who thinks that persons should be able to publish any claim they want about another person with impunity is not considering how much damage words pushing falsehoods can cause. For example, free speech as an absolute, enables me to publish online, and in advertisements, and on every telephone pole any series of 'false facts' I want.
Would you like to be, say, falsely accused of being a convicted pedophile in various publishes sources? Imagine having that published and advertised along with a made-up mug shot. Having such a false claim pushed into your community would be severely damaging, and would affect every aspect of your life. Of course you should be able to go to court to ascertain the truth and seek damages.
We all agree that lying under oath in court is damaging. Certainly, we should agree that lying about someone outside of court can be as well.
People point out that you should just reply with the truth, and let the public sort it out. This can work, and is usually the best recourse, but it doesn't prove the truth, and it assumes that you can reply with the same published force your accuser has. Not to mention the time you now must spend doing this because of someone's lies.
Going back to Weaver v. The National Post: What an unequal situation! The NP has a large audience, and refused to publish retractions. How is Weaver to respond to that audience in kind? Full pages ads in the same paper? Ads he ironically has to pay his false accuser for? Does he have to start his own newspaper?
Fair play and proper journalistic ethics says that he should have a response published in the paper that attacked his reputation repeatedly. The NP, however, appears to have refused.
There are more rights than free speech. In Canada, we also have the right to an accurate reputation. Those two rights often rub against each other. We do tolerate some friction, and there is more work to be done preventing abuses on both sides of the issue (believe me, as a libel defendant myself, I know). But, generally, though you can choose you opinions, you don't get to invent your facts, and that's what Weaver's lawsuit is about.
There are necessary responsibilities which come with free speech, and there are necessary consequences.
---
(*)Note that in Canada, insults are never considered libelous.
Weaver should have sued the National Post using the British libel system. It would have had a nice symmetry with the BCA losing their suit against Simon Singh.
Not being a lawyer myself, I ould guess the most interesting legal part of this might be the demands that the NP help remove its articles from third party websites, and the lawsuit including some anonymous commenters.
further to what Mark Francis said, with the Internet a libel is going to travel much farther and faster, and therefore someone who is found guilty of libel would presumably have to work much harder to repair the damage they have done.
Go get 'em Andrew. This sort of behavior should be severely punished.
The Post may not have a war on ALL science but it definitely has a war on any "inconvenient" science. Inconvenient science is basically any science that might hint at the need to respect the commons or at a need for government regulation.
As well as the long-running attacks on climate science they recently highlighted a flawed article by McKitrick claiming that there are no observable health effects from air pollution. They have pushed that same meme on earlier occasions. Also recycling is bad and wasteful, pesticides are good - always, all green power is expensive and useless, wilderness preservation is bad, clubbing seals is good, etc etc etc. Maybe you can detect a common theme.
I almost never read the paper but get some of their articles on environmental themes forwarded to me as part of a clippings service
RE the Fox news case, just a point of clarification. The case hinged on a hyper-technical reading of the whistle blower statute and what constitutes protection for whistle blowers under it. It was not a defamation case, so from the perspective of libel law, there is really nothing to be learned from it.
But to the larger point, yes, news agencies can and often do lie. If they knowingly lie about a person, that person can sue under US libel laws, but the news agency is protected under 1st amendment rules from govt interference in their lying. That is just the way it is.
News agencies in the US can and do lie all the time and do so with impunity. Anyone who doesn't understand this is naive in the extreme.
The NP is also part of a newspaper chain which is up for sale; they could be bought by the owners of the Toronto Star, which is more centrist or slightly leftish, depending where you are standing. It's not a denialist paper, anyuway.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/torstar-cash-at-hand-…
Global warming alarmists' definition of "war on science":
"Any dissent from my (political) agenda."
"Weaver should have sued the National Post using the British libel system."
oh, God no.
it'd take him 2 years of wrangling to get a judgement. if he lost -- not impossible, given the general weirdness of the system; remember that Singh was forced to defend an interpretation of his own words that he didn't actually agree with -- he'd end up with 6- or 7-figure legal bills. if he won, he'd *still* probably be out of pocket (as Simon Singh almost certainly will be).
there's a reason that we need libel reform over here :-/
michel:
The NP has also publisher several articles promoting Intelligent Design Creationism, particulary by Elizabeth Nickson (who was eventually sacked for plagiarism).
elizabethnickson.com/darwin.htm
One of their (thankfully obscure) blog writers posted a dumb anti-flu vaccine article a few months ago.
network.nationalpost.com/.../lawrence-solomon-first-do-no-harm.aspx -
Being a staunch moderate, I used to get the NP on the weekend. Not any more, I'm not fond of dumbassitude.
Dr. Weaver,
Way to go! This is excellent news and I for one am sure glad that someone is finally taking it to the likes of Corcoran!
Best of luck, I'm afraid to say that I think you'll need it, on the other hand I also suspect that you will be surprised at how much support (from around the globe) you have.
@16:
I don't know about the Post specifically, but the climate change "skeptic" movement in general has claimed that:
1. Climate scientists are part of a conspiracy to commit fraud.
2. They push global warming simply to get research grants.
3. They're in cahoots with various governments and the UN to promote one-world communism.
And so on.
These are not merely attacks on a particular scientific theory, they're attacks on the institutions and people who conduct science, and on the legitimacy of the entire scientific enterprise in our society. These types of allegations can be leveled against any scientist for any reason. It is an attempt to transform science from an objective and reliable source of knowledge to something that can be safely ignored if it doesn't fit your ideological prejudice.
If that's not a war on science, I don't know what is.
Yeah, I can think of a few more NP denialist columnists I would like to see sued, though they appear to have no connection to the specific issues in this lawsuit.
HollyStick @37,
Has Gunter written anything about Weaver at the NP?
He has mentioned him here and probably elsewhere - I've no time to look just now:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/27…
And here's DeSmogBlog in 2008:
http://www.desmogblog.com/national-posts-peter-foster-is-he-suffering-s…
See, this is how I know el gordo is a Poe. The obvious answer is that we're "moaning" about incorrect stupidity. Nobody's dumb enough not to figure that out. Hilarious! Keep it up!
Thanks Holly. No worries, don't waste your time; I'll do some Googling. I just thought hat you might know off the top of your head.
For decades the msm has been pushing AGW very effectively, without criticism.
This is an absolute lie. I've been paying attention to this issue since the late eighties, and throughout that time, op-ed pages and articles have always been open to skeptics and denialists, and their connections to industry have usually been downplayed.
When the NAS synthesis panel recommended climate action back in 1991, very few newspaper editorials and articles reported on their position accurately, let alone supported it.
The fact is, there was already a very effective anti-regulatory, anti-environmental denial industry in this country, and the moment AGW started to become a serious concern, it began using the media as a bullhorn while claiming that it was being "stifled."
You either need to educate yourself, or stop lying.
As I understand it, Canada has stricter defamation laws than elsewhere. Any lawyers here? What are the chances of Dr. Weaver winning the fight against big media? This would set a nice precedent. Perhaps other denialist outlets/blogs will have to clean up their acts as well. Their dishonest rhetoric against scientists is disgraceful.
@bluegrue
RE: WUWT hypocrisy over youtube takedowns.
Interesting that any attempt to point out that Anthony did much the same thing last year (but on more tenuous gruonds) is swiftly modded into oblivion...
very good news, especially in light of the CDN govt attitude and actions re climate science - hopefully there will be financial support forthcoming in abundance for Dr Weaver
"Weaver should have sued the National Post using the British libel system."
and
"As I understand it, Canada has stricter defamation laws than elsewhere."
Canada's libel law is likely still stricter than any others you'll find in a true democracy. Singapore's is far worse, but that's not a true democracy.
Canada's libel law comes from English Common Law and remains close to it; however, the UK's libel law has become more liberal in the past decade or so. Canada is still catching up. It has recently created the defense of responsible journalism, which allows for errors in reporting which cause defamation as long as proper journalistic practices were followed. The court still expects errors in the record to be corrected though.
The Supreme Court of Canada will be ruling on a case that I have a connection to, deciding whether hyperlinks to libelous material are to be considered at all times a republication, and thus a dissemination of libel, or merely considered as a footnote, thus a reference and not therefore actionable. (look for Crookes v. P2pnet)
The state of affairs in Canada is similar to where America was in the 1950s. Contrary to perception, America had steep libel law based upon the British Common Law at the time until the Supreme Court there ruled in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that it was permissive to report incorrect claims in matters of public interest. This approach has been rejected elsewhere in favor of a less absolute approach which requires considerable court time. Libel still exists in the US: you can't get away with false defamatory fact, which is why Weaver has a case even using America's standard.
Libel cases in Canada take forever. My case (I'm a libel defendant in BC in Crookes v. Holloway) has been going on since 2006, and there's been no progress for quite a while. A good chunk of it has been thrown out.
For the past two decades the msm was basically asleep on this issue, until the internet changed the media landscape forever.
Journalists don't understand the science, so they rehash the press release. This is lamentable, but the blogosphere has fueled the debate about climate change and the media have reluctantly joined the fray.
In Australia we have a government fully committed to the idea of AGW, with millions of Ruddites supporting their argument to use taxpayers money to stop the warming.
Climate change is political, yet the conservatives will probably try to avoid making it an election issue because of the large numbers who have swallowed the green pill, fed to them over the years by the msm and through the education system
Phila @43:
Why not raise the bar a little higher:
El Gordo, you need to educate yourself, *and* to stop lying.
From CCC @ DeSmogBlog:
"Congress should consider better ways to deal with organized, Internet-amplified defamation campaigns
not handled well by current laws. Climate scientists should not face death threats."
"Defamation is complex, especially Internet & international
www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#4
www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1874
www.article19.org/advocacy/defamationmap/map
www.thebarcode.net/pdf/CheatSheetSamples.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation Can be criminal some places in the world.
This is complex to a legal layman (like me) and of course in the USA, defamation law varies by state. I am not sure exactly how that interacts with the Internet Era. Much current activity seems to me like purposeful organized defamation, often using the Internet as an amplifier. The Internet and even email have not
encouraged civility. I conjecture that this sometimes leads to threats of violence by the final consumers of this material or at least mass floods of email from ill-informed people demanding resignations of scientists for no good reason. Of course, in many cases, actions that might be legally ruled defamation never get
pursued, due to time or financial limitations. From much personal experience, scientists really want to do
science, not spend their time in court, and few are wealthy enough to do it anyway."
>*As I understand it, Canada has stricter defamation laws than elsewhere. Any lawyers here?*
Not sure. Perhaps the US is lose compared to other post-British colonies. The UK is famous for having some of the strictest liable laws around (at least by reputation). I was expecting the first of these attempts to set the record straight to come from Britain.
Perhaps if this case works in clearing documenting fact from fiction, it could be part of new wave?
Here's our first troll abartement challenge. This thread is about a scientist's defamation suit. El Gordo wants to talk about:
Ruddites supporting their argument to use taxpayers money to stop the warming. i.e the Liberals' talking point.
and
the large numbers who have swallowed the green pill, fed to them over the years by the msm and through the education system
Which of us will oblige by helping him thread hijack? Who will be first? Not I, said Fran. There are open threads for that.
There's a discussion of some of the legal aspects at the West Coast Environmental Law centre [here](http://wcel.org/resources/environmental-law-alert/time-sue-climate-chan…).
47 Mark,
I am most interested in what you have to say. The Law, and libel law in particular, is something most of us have only vague knowledge of. Why else would it be such a lucrative profession (I'm sure you have barristers or the equivalent in Canada?).
There has been mention of UK libel laws. I can only suggest that anyone interested read the story of BCA vs. Simon Singh. See [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh), and anyone who whines about Wikipedia not being "reliable" should STFU and follow the links.
How might this play out here in Australia?
We do not have a constitutional right to free speech in this country, nor a bill of rights. Are libel laws as strict as those in Canada? I ask because this is a field I know nothing about.
@55 Good place to start.http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
I think trying to decide science via legal methods is not going to end well. The deniers can play that game just as well , and have a lot more money which equals the best lawyers.
B...b....[splutter]...but...but...but...RealClimate censors dissenting opinions!
(It's amazing how often I hear that line about RealClimate, often posted in complete ignorance of the censoring that goes on at WUWT or ClimateAudit. I point out I seem to find dissenting comments on every RC thread I visit...but that hardly counts as evidence against the original claim ;-)
Thanks Bill!
I think the fact that, as you say, they can play the game and have more money doesn't augur well for science.
Man, science in action, as in "actionable!" Imagine the folly of using the courts to shut out skeptics, er, I mean "deniers." Just for the record, Lambert, science fights with only weapon and on only one field: with facts on the battlefield of reason. The only people who ever used courts of law to push "science" were the Soviets. Once again the world is laughing at Canada, shithole nation of the world. Lucky for us all the planet's cooling- helps keeps down the smell of Weaver crapping himself!
Is the National Post owned by that champion of climate science, Rupert Murdoch, by any chance? As far as I know, only the USA has a constitutional protection to lie. The last time I looked at an atlas, British Columbia was in Canada where no such protection exists. That should make a Court decision in this matter an interesting and important precedent.
Australia's libel law used to be basically identical to Canada's, but has undergone several changes due to precedent and statute in recent years. One curious change is that Australia now sees no difference between slander and libel.
New Zealand also has reformed its libel law. Canada, actually, remains archaic. It really should be on the legislative calendar in every province. Instead, we're twisting judges' arms trying to eek out some fairness.
Wikipedia has a good primer on libel law throughout the world. Look it up!
So that's why they held the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial and the Scopes Monkey trial?! ;-)
You're confusing the process of science - which is largely about facts and reason as you describe - with the reporting of and teaching about and politics surrounding and propaganda regarding science. In those domains restricting oneself to "fighting...with facts on the battlefield of reason" demonstrably fails, primarily because the science opponents are not at all interested in fighting about what's factual or even being truthful; they're fighting to sway public perception to their claims regardless of the reliability of said claims.
Oh, and try reading the article again.
The lawsuit is not about "shutting out the skeptics". It's about false claims made about a scientist and his work. If you think the making of those types of false claims is necessary in order to be a skeptic...then you've pretty much proved your definition if "skeptic" meets the working definition of "denier".
[Skeptical](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.p…):
This is why I [brought up the contrast between the right to lie, and the right to deceive](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.p…). A reader/listener of media may understand that the media (at least, in the USA) have the right to lie, but this does not guarantee that the reader/listener will know when material presented actually is a lie.
I can't help but wonder if there is some legislation (say, a consumer protection law or similar) that would essentially protect the public from wilful deception that arises as a consequence of the media pursuing its apparent right to lie. A bit like one's right to smoke ends where someone else's lungs start, surely the right to lie ends where someone else's right to expectation of truth in a transaction begins â and reading/listening to media is at the most essential a transaction.
If it hasn't been already, I don't expect such a contrast to be tested in law any time soon, but I would be intensely interested to see what would eventuate if it were.
"The only people who ever used courts of law to push "science" were the Soviets."
[Lotharsson beat me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.p…) to the references to two of the high-profile examples that make a mockery of the above statement, but it might be useful to [include some of the other related cases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#R…).
Oh, and can we disemvowel the poster? His nonsense is a bit beyond the pail, and anyway I think that it's past time that Tom Fuller was given something to fuel his rage...
AIUI even in the US these days, it is illegal to promote cigarettes as "low tar" even when they are. So not only can't you deceive, you can't make truthful statements about the product if others might get the wrong idea.
There's now talk of bringing in plain packaging -- so you can't even have corporate livery. Apparently green and blue packaging was read as healthier/less harmful than other colours.
This is great news.
Finally someone will get the powers of discovery through the courts to look into fact as they have been presented in the press. These powers are wide and deep, and in proving that their position is valid the paper may be able to reach into all of the organizations with which Mr. Weaver has had professional relationship. Defendants are often given such latitude in cases involving the presentation or misrepresentation of fact.
I can not wait to have lawyers with court orders going through the actual data, methods, internal reports and financials of the organizations involved. With any luck we may get a peek into the CRU and finally be on the road to understanding why and how a Middle Eastern kingdom (actually the Sultanate of Oman) was financing a British climate research business for the past few years.
I wonder when we will hear about his request for a publication ban.
12 regular Canadians will decide the outcome.
This is great news.
You're apparently rather selective in your idea of the "organisations involved". There's a whole denialism propaganda machine you kind of forgot to mention. There might be some rather interesting discovery in that direction. Tobacco Papers, anyone?
Andrew30@,
Wow, you really have not read the documents presented to the court.
Corcoran et al. are liars, they are ethically bankrupt and mean-spirited. If you cannot see that fact, as demonstrated by their actions time and time again, then there is no hope for you.
This case probably won't even go to discovery. The court will decide whether or not the NP is guilty as charged. You seem to have the facts backwards.
Yes, this is great news, but not for the reasons you believe, you have been well and truly hood winked by Corcoran et al's lies. If you want to defend criminal acts so be it, but it does not reflect well on your moral standing or ethics.
The more relevant analogy for legal action in this case is legal action against tobacco companies.
http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/litigation/cases/index.htm
and how long have legal actions against tobacco companies run for. Using court cases against denialists is playing their game. These are decided by good science and the court of public opinion.
Notice how quick McIntyre ( denialist central) is to run off to courts and politicians. Fortunately, so far , only Inhofe has been sympathetic to him.
This lawsuit seems to have gotten Gordo all fired up. I suppose that since he claims to be a journalist, this will have major implications for anything he writes in the future.
The National Post works the same way he does - it publishes lies and then refuses to retract (or even acknowledge!) them.
@66. Bwahahahahaha!
A lawyer is actually going to go through the climate data and methods, and actually understand what in the hell he is doing?
Whatever. Also, it's a bit of a silly comment seeing as the methods, and most of the data, are all available either in the original published scientific papers or at the numerous data sources which we keep providing links to for sceptics, but who continually fail to even bother looking at them.
Send better trolls! (I'll join the chorus)
[Mike](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.p…):
Cohenite thinks that he does exactly this - and without even any appropriate concurrent training in the physics, and without any intimate familiarity with the processes of science.
Magic!
It's no wonder that he is such a valuable acquisition by the Australian Climate Sceptics party.
Sorry I meant @67 (Andrew30 the troll, not Fran). Going blind in my old age.
Andrew30 has also been trolling on the CBC site:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/21/bc-andrew-weaver-national…
Yes and Andrew30 is a good example of the type of bullshit that can go on in a court.
Well, well our troll has some interesting ideas, he is also a conspiracy theorist it seems...
"andrew30 wrote:Posted 2010/04/22
at 9:24 PM ETAvicenna wrote: (Posted 2010/04/22 at 8:47 PM ET)
âWeaver should reach out to the Union of Concerned Scientistsâ
Definitely; the more organizations he can bring in to court with him the better. Let us see where the big money in this whole deception has been originating.
Surely his leader and followers would not let him go into court on his own.
I hope he understands that proof in climatology [edit, he is a climate scientist] is not the same as proof in court and that you can not just start calling the judge and other members of the court bad names when they disagree with you or ask difficult questions or ask to see your rough work.
This is great news, the more the merrier.
I hope you are right Avicenna, I hope they all show up."
The above fabricated falsehoods made by Andrew30 in this post is exactly the reason why Dr. Weaver is suing the NP over.
Also, one of Andrew30's fans at CBC appears to have been fiddling with the CBC voting system and giving his post lots of "thumbs up". Not nearly as many votes as on other occasions though, recently a denier gave themselves close to 1000 thumbs up in a couple of minutes!
If you want to enjoy some of the nonsense and invective that andrew30 has been spouting at CBC, go here:
https://membercentre.cbc.ca/ViewMember.aspx?u=10436654
The link provides a summary of his posts and (distorted) views on AGW and climate scientists. Going by his comments on the Arctic sea ice extent, he does not seem to know much about important issues such as volume of MY ice and the difference between noise and stat. sig. long term trends. Do you Andrew30?
Tonight's headlines: Concern troll is concerned...
...and wrong.
Film at 11.
Lotharsson stick to arguments and not labels.
Not really. The Constitution (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms more specifically) captures law, including common law and so the Supreme Court has considered the balance between protection of reputation and the constitutional right of freedom of expression in the recent cases of Grant v. Torstar Corp and Quan v. Cusson.
The SC endorsed the Ontario Court of Appeal's defence of "responsible communication on matters of public interest" and said "To be protected by the defence of responsible communication, first, the publication must be on a matter of public interest. Second, the defendant must show that publication was responsible, in that he or she was diligent in trying to verify the allegation(s), having regard to all the relevant circumstances."
Having pored over Weaver's Statement of Claim and read some of the articles, it sure doesn't sound to me like the Post and its minions would meet that standard.
As current American politics demonstrates, that isn't really so. Short of being caught on video telling someone "I know damn well that I'm lying when I say 'Senator Quackenbush stole a million dollars from the Senate coffee fund.'" you're very unlikely to be nailed for libel in the USA. Personally, I think things like the swift-boating show that libel law has swung so far toward favouring defendents that it now undermines the very democratic process that freedom of speech exists to support.
Sure, let's try that.
Argument:
It was said that "using court cases against denialists is playing their game". This is not true. Denialists are not interested in the scientific truth; they are interested in undermining public perception of and confidence in the science, often in order to bias public policy away from a full and fair consideration of the implications of the science. Their use of the courts (to the extent that it is evident) does not seek to uncover the truth, but to harass individuals and organisations engaged in science and promotion of science and to degrade their ability to carry out their work, and to cast public doubt on the science. Therefore using court cases against denialists who appear to be (a) libeling individual scientists and (b) (likely willfully) and egregiously misrepresenting the science is nothing like what denialists do in the courts, or any of their "game". Hence it is argued that scientists should ignore the advice to forgo use of the courts.
Furthermore, the sentence quoted in the previous paragraph led immediately to "These are decided by good science and the court of public opinion." Now firstly it should be noted that the conclusion does not follow from the previous sentence, therefore the commenter is wrong. Secondly, it should be noted that the veracity or otherwise of scientific claims, and the quality of the scientific reputation of individual scientists, are both demonstrably not decided by "the court of public opinion", therefore the commenter is wrong once more.
Thirdly, if one is coming from a denialist perspective, then typically the court of public opinion is highly important to the success of one's endeavours to influence the public perception of science, regardless of the accuracy of the opinion ones seeks to inculcate. However no scientist would agree that public opinion validates or invalidates science. This adds weight to the suggestion that the commenter's odd conflation of "good science" and "court of public opinion" is NOT coming from someone who is seeking to promote whatever the science shows, despite the apparent attempt to cast their concerns as being grounded in that perspective.
For those who are aware of all Internet traditions, the act of pretending to adopt a position in order to recommend actions or ways of thinking that ultimately undermine that position is termed "concern trolling". This is found quite frequently in contentious debates, and the tactics are quite widely known. Assuming this commenter is concern trolling, then his execution of the tactic adds nothing to the fine art thereof, and by regular application of the principles of the English language he may be termed a "concern troll".
It should be noted that some people object to the application of the descriptive noun to individuals. This tactic may even be deployed to distract attention from the identification of the use of concern trolling tactics. There's another name in Teh Internet Traditions for that behaviour...but I won't mention it here because that tactic will only be deployed in response, creating further distraction ;-)
There, how's that?
Me, I think the original was easier to grok.
And it sure was easier to type ;-)
@81 "Second, the defendant must show that publication was responsible, in that he or she was diligent in trying to verify the allegation(s), having regard to all the relevant circumstances."
However in court it will be argued by the defendant's counsel that his client(s) were extremely diligent.
What the court decides has nothing to do with the science of climate change.
Lotharsson #83: I too prefer the executive summary :-)
About bloody time!
I have an idea that might help solve the global warming crisis.
All of the top scientific organizations in the world should band together, take up a collection, and hire Bill Nye the Science Guy as their spokesperson.
Perhaps he can do for the NAS what Charlton Heston did for the NRA?
Honestly, who could possibly not trust the Science Guy?
Believe it or not, there actually is one such person and his name is Patrick Michaels, one of the more infamous global warming deniers. Heâs a member of the Cato Institute, so chances are heâs representing their best interests, similar to the way an attorney represents a client.
Read: Patrick Michaels is a Buffoon
http://harryhammer.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/patrick-michaels-is-a-buffo…
Lotharsson you are the one who is confused. The statement
"Denialists are not interested in the scientific truth; they are interested in undermining public perception of and confidence in the science, often in order to bias public policy away from a full and fair consideration of the implications of the science. Their use of the courts (to the extent that it is evident) does not seek to uncover the truth, but to harass individuals and organisations engaged in science and promotion of science and to degrade their ability to carry out their work, and to cast public doubt on the science. " is true. You don't think that they can't use court cases against them for their own benefit? Just watch and see. The rest of your post is twaddle.
Re: "Hide the Decline"
I'd bet You Tube took it down for copyright infringement, although I'm not certain about musical parodies, but if You Tube makes any money off of ads or anything related to the video they'd owe Tommy James and the Shondells a piece of the pie.
It would have to be. But he or she would also have to demonstrate this.
Have you read the Statement of Claim?
There may be relevant history to suggest how they've done this in the past with this particular kind of suit, or reasons to think they would be successful in this specific case, and these would be worthy of discussion, but you've not provided them. 'They try to use the courts' and 'They have more money' just aren't going to cut it. Too vague.
The statement of claim contains enough easily verifiable facts (such as whether the police were called after a break-in) that convincing a jury of the details of the climate science will not be necessary to decide the case. In fact I suspect the lawyers for the plaintiff have been careful to frame the case in terms of matters of readily verifiable fact.
Read it.
That Prof Weaver has been subject to such a sustained, malicious attack on matters of little or no bearing on the science only illustrates how little substance there is on the denial side.
This may be opportune time to remind of my [pro-science petition](http://www.petitiononline.com/clim4tr/petition.html).
Of course they will. But they will also use "scientists not suing them for libelous misrepresentation".
Look at the Republican noise machine in the US. Everything that happens - no matter what, including events that impartial observers see as deeply damaging - is ultimately spun as "good for the Republicans". Given that a part of the Republican noise machine appears to be a key component of the denialist propaganda machine, I have no doubt they will do the same.
Similarly look at the UK parliamentary inquiry - it would have been "useful" in one fashion if it found malfeasance; it proved "useful" in another sense when the researchers were found to be "squeaky clean" because it served a cry of "conspiracy and whitewash!".
The lawsuit will be useful to them one way or another - there's no strategy or outcome for which they will not find a use. Given that, what matters is the comparative net effect of the differing options - not focusing on the usefulness of any one and ignoring the usefulness of the other(s).
This may not be true. If any of the legal questions rest on whether the scientific case is sufficiently plausible, the court may end up assessing that question. Consider the UK lawsuit seeking to ban "An Inconvenient Truth" - in order to decide that matter the judge had to decide whether the film had a reasonable scientific basis for its claims, and found that (by and large, with some caveats) it did.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned how climate 'skeptic' John Coleman has been threatening to sue Al Gore for, like, more than two years.
Or how climate 'skeptic' Christopher "Discount Monk" Monckton has been threatening to sue, well, pretty much every prominent figure who agrees with the global warming theory.
Of course, now that a climate scientist has actually brought a lawsuit against journalists writing inactivist nonsense, the climate 'skeptics' suddenly think that using lawsuits to settle science is pure evil.
Are climate 'skeptics' deliberately forgetting these things, or do they actually have very bad memory?
Congratulations to Dr Weaver, and good luck with the case.
My two cents here - this strikes me as a necessary, if melancholy move to make. The Deniosaurs have shown, over and over and over again, that no matters of ethics or even simple decency will retard them in the least.
I'm sure I needn't point the finger specifically.
Since nothing else will stop them slandering, then people are simply going to have to hit them in the only place where they feel anything at all - the Wallet.
If this case is successful, then it will be brought home to the Deniosaurs that they can no longer expect to lie and to libel with utter impunity.
It seems to me, as well, following a certain ABC thread of very recent memory, that self-appointed media commentators ought perhaps to be subject to consumer law in some way.
After all, if a tradesperson can be proven to have lied to a consumer, they can face various penalties in various ways for their action.
Why shouldn't a high-profile Deniosaur who uses mass media to deliberately misinform thousands be subject to at least the same sorts of penalties?
Insert name of preferred candidate here...
Mike from Ottawa:
Keep in mind that the Whole Swift Boating mess was never tried in court. But, yes, some of the details of how Sullivan changed things are problematic.
The SCC has previously expressed that the Charter applies only 'in spirit' when it comes to private torts. I think there's an intersection where the Charter meets the libel and slander statutes though. My last conversation with a libel expert who has presented successfully at the SCC asked this question of him, and he basically replied that there was a lot of tip-toing around on this issue. For example, judges are so far refusing to accept fair comment as a defense if there's a finding of malice because common law has always been that way, though one can easily point out that Section 2b of the Charter makes no such exception.
Yes, we have a right to malicious opinion, I say. We don't have a right to make up facts mind you.
Anyway, getting way off topic...
["It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible." -- Prof. Tom Flanagan]
Fran Barlow's argument is utterly vapid. What the corporate court granted, in its usual judicially activist anti-Constitutional way, was the right to falsely advertise that you're doing news and deliberately lie to the people who in good faith accept your sale. And to hire people to do news then fire them for doing news. Fox was in breach of its employee contract, and in violation of the laws governing fraud, but it simply has the money and connections to get Bush v. Gore type decisions. Doesn't mean people have to twist themselves into stupid knots justifying it. Let their paid flacks and high-priced attorneys do that.
Commercial speech doesn't have the right to lie - it's not part of the right of free speech AT ALL - it's part of the law of contracts. I can't say I have cancer medicine in the bottle you're buying if it's really sugar water. I can't say I'll pay you $10,000 a year to work for me then pay you $1, and say "I lied, it was part of my corporation's human right to free speech."
Canadian, presumably federal, law is at issue, BTW. So while we can get insights from US, Australian, and to a limited degree UK law, I am going to bear that in mind. Also, this is a test case we'll refer back to, rather than something we can suss out in advance.
Don't assume that holds for libel law, read the cases I linked above.
Whether spirit or not, the Charter was a critical part of the Grant v Torstar case. Because libel law touches directly on freedom of expression, it involves the Charter in ways that other areas of civil law may not.
Re discussion about commenter andrew30, he did at least provide me some amusement when he managed to sell a bizarre conspiracy theory to Delingpole:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate…
This is great news.
Indeed. Perhaps now someone can sue Hansen and his minions for their paranoid conspiracy theories about "Big Oil". Maybe they can also be sued for using the word "denialist" in a transparent attempt to associate anyone who disagrees with them with Holocaust denial.
I can't wait!
Shorter AGWSkeptic:
I conveniently forget that Coleman and Monckton have already been threatening to sue climate activists left and right. Therefore, suing people over climate science is wrong.
Zibethicus:
> Since nothing else will stop them slandering, then people are simply going to have to hit them in the only place where they feel anything at all - the Wallet.
My thoughts exactly. Some people will write and publish any nonsense just for the money; the only way to make them pay any attention to facts is to cause them to make less money.
No impunity for lies!
AGW,Skeptic, there is nothing wrong with the term 'denialist'-- it describes someone who ins in denial about AGW, or who denies its existence. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Honestly, we have been over this so many times here and elsewhere. Invoking the Holocaust is a lame and convenient ploy by the contrarians to try and defend their baseless position, and to detract from the vacuity of their 'science'.
Your friend McIntyre uses terms like "crack cocaine" and "jihadist", so let us bring him before the courts too.
Unlike you moniker suggests, I doubt very much that you are a true skeptic. I love the spin that you and your ilk are trying to put on this. It is entertaining to watch you squirm and do your best to defend the criminal antics of Corcoran et al.
Anyhow, this is good news, and not for the reasons that you believe.
AGWSkeptic:
>Maybe they can also be sued for using the word "denialist" in a transparent
>attempt to associate anyone who disagrees with them with Holocaust denial.
As opposed to the very subtle and sophisticated use of the term ["Hitler Youth"](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/11/monckton-calls-a…) by a certain person on the "skeptical" side.
I conveniently forget that Coleman and Monckton have already been threatening to sue climate activists left and right. Therefore, suing people over climate science is wrong.
Where did I say that it was wrong, or that Coleman and Monckton were right? Is this SOP for you alarmists, putting words into people's mouths? All I'm saying is that y'all should be careful what you wish for, as you might end up getting it.
AGW,Skeptic, there is nothing wrong with the term 'denialist'-- it describes someone who ins in denial about AGW, or who denies its existence. It has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Honestly, we have been over this so many times here and elsewhere. Invoking the Holocaust is a lame and convenient ploy by the contrarians to try and defend their baseless position, and to detract from the vacuity of their 'science'.
So, if you were actually trying to invoke Holocaust denial, would you own up to it?
That's what I thought.
And being in denial about that makes you a "denialist" too.
I also deny the existence of the Christian "god", which, like AGW doesn't exist. Does that make me a "denialist of Christianity"?
As opposed to the very subtle and sophisticated use of the term "Hitler Youth" by a certain person on the "skeptical" side.
Shorter Lars:
"The denialists do it too!! The denialists do it too!!!!!11one!!1"
Shorter AGWSkeptic:
I never said suing people over climate science is wrong, I only hinted it's wrong. And I didn't say Coleman and Monckton were right in threatening to sue activists. But they can sue, though I didn't say that.
Shorter AGWSkeptic #106:
1. The word "denialist", which doesn't contain any traces of the words "Holocaust" or "Hitler" or "Nazi", is a blatant reference to Hitler.
2. "Hitler Youth", however, is emphatically not a reference to Hitler, despite containing the word "Hitler".
3. Therefore, Global Warmists Are Closed-Minded.
AGW "So, if you were actually trying to invoke Holocaust denial, would you own up to it? That's what I thought. And being in denial about that makes you a "denialist" too.
This is surreal-- are you serious? That is quite the straw man argument. Not to mention distorting what I said-- apparently distorting is not something that only Corcoran (who is in denial about AGW) does. R e a d what I wrote c a r e f u l l y. I have explained what I meant when I use the term "denial" as it pertains to AGW, and AGW alone.
You clearly have no idea what Dr. Weaver's case is about. Follow the link above and read his statement of claim.
Bye, bye denialist troll. I'm done "feeding" you.
PS: If you knew your facts, which you seem to not, you would know that Monckton also made that statement to a Jewish person in Copenhagen who lost relatives during the Holocaust. Even after the person explained that to Monckton, Monckton carried on saying it to his face.
Shorter Frank the Lying Moron:
"See how many non-sequiturs I can construct in one post! Ain't I special???!!!!one!!11"
And you know damn well that people associate "denialism" with the Holocaust, unless you are in denial about this obvious fact, of course.
Are trolls such as "AGWSkeptic" frantically trying to collect their pay cheques for their efforts in spamming inactivist talking points? Perhaps now, with the climate denial industry slowly collapsing, the players are now trying to cash out as quickly as they can. Will they need a bailout from taxpayers?
This is surreal-- are you serious? That is quite the straw man argument. Not to mention distorting what I said-- apparently distorting is not something that only Corcoran (who is in denial about AGW) does. R e a d what I wrote c a r e f u l l y. I have explained what I meant when I use the term "denial" as it pertains to AGW, and AGW alone.
And how would we tell if you were lying about that? It's a bunch of self-serving crap, something you alarmists have in abundance.
You clearly have no idea what Dr. Weaver's case is about. Follow the link above and read his statement of claim.
I did. But then that wouldn't matter to a lying denialist like yourself would it?
PS: If you knew your facts, which you seem to not, you would know that Monckton also made that statement to a Jewish person in Copenhagen who lost relatives during the Holocaust. Even after the person explained that to Monckton, Monckton carried on saying it to his face.
And this is relevant how? Talk about strawmen!
Shorter AGWSkeptic:
1. I use the term "non sequitur"! It's Latin, which means I'm profound!
2. It's "obvious", using transcendental methods outside of logic, proof, or evidence, that the word "denialist" is a reference to Hitler, while the phrase "Hitler Youth" is not a reference to Hitler.
3. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.
Hey Frank the Lying Halfwit:
Why don't you go back to your conspiracy theorist blog, or "scholarly journal", or whatever the hell it is, and dream up more tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? The adults here are trying to have a conversation.
Shorter AGWSkeptic #112:
1. I don't care what you said! I know you're lying! YOU'RE LYING! YOU'RE LYING! YOU'RE LYING!
2. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.
Frank the Lying Imbecile:
while the phrase "Hitler Youth" is not a reference to Hitler.
Where did I say this? Please learn to read for comprehension. I guess putting words into people's mouths really is par for the course with you lot.
Shorter AGWSkeptic #112:
1. I don't care what you said! I know you're lying! YOU'RE LYING! YOU'RE LYING! YOU'RE LYING!
2. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.
I know you're lying! YOU'RE LYING! YOU'RE LYING! YOU'RE LYING!
Which you demonstrate by putting words into my mouth. How typical.
Longer AGWSkeptic:
I never actually said that "Hitler Youth" is not a reference to Hitler. However, for all intents and purposes, I'm treating "Hitler Youth" as anything other than a reference to Hitler. Which, by the way, is not the same as saying outright that "Hitler Youth" as anything other than a reference to Hitler.
Also, in the same way, for all intents and purposes I'm treating "Frank the Lying Moron" and "Frank the Lying Imbecile" as not instances of name-calling. This is not to say that I consider "Frank the Lying Moron" and "Frank the Lying Imbecile" as not instances of name-calling.
Note too, dear alarmists, that I have read Weaver's Statement of Claim. This is why I'm so fixated on something other than what's written in Weaver's Statement of Claim.
Therefore, it'll be wrong to say that I'm a troll. Which is not the same thing as saying that I'm not a troll, because I never said that. However, for all intents and purposes you should treat me as, well, not a troll. Because I think I'll be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Which is not the same as saying that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. However, for all intents and purposes, you should understand that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Although I'm not really saying that I will be very angry if...
Therefore, global warming is a hoax.
AGWSkeptic has now followed the predictable path of resorting to ad hom, vitriol, insults and invective to try and substitute for the absolute vacuity of his/her argument.
How about we all stop feeding the troll and move on? One parting note, regarding the "Hitler youth", from AGWSkeptic at #106:
"As opposed to the very subtle and sophisticated use of the term "Hitler Youth" by a certain person on the "skeptical" side.
Shorter Lars:
"The denialists do it too!! The denialists do it too!!!!!11one!!1""
Therefore, it'll be wrong to say that I'm a troll. Which is not the same thing as saying that I'm not a troll, because I never said that. However, for all intents and purposes you should treat me as, well, not a troll. Because I think I'll be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Which is not the same as saying that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. However, for all intents and purposes, you should understand that I will be very angry if you do treat me as a troll. Although I'm not really saying that I will be very angry if...
Classic projection. Not to mention Dunning-Kruger. Congrats, Frank!
Maple Leaf @ 109:
Bye, bye denialist troll. I'm done "feeding" you.
Then you post @ 120.
Were you lying then? Are you lying now?
Poor AGW skeptic, s/he does not seem to understand what the DK effect is.
This IS entertaining, pass the popcorn...
Let us not forget that Dr. Lewis is taking Jonathan Leake to task for misrepresenting his views and science. The scientists are fighting back and it is about time.
So it is hardly surprising that the denialists' mignons are fighting back and doing everything they can do to try and create a smoke screen to protect their masters.
Now if only they could present some facts to defend the actions of the NP.....
Longer AGWSkeptic #114 and #121:
I'm an adult in this conversation, and although I never actually claimed outright that I'm an adult in this conversation, for all intents and purposes you should actually treat it as an adult in this conversation, because I'll be very angry if you don't, even if I'm not saying that outright.
You can see how adult I am when I use phrases like "Frank the Lying Moron", "Frank the Lying Halfwit", and "Frank the Lying Imbecile". Phrases such as these are the hallmark of a civilized, adult conversation. Therefore, I am clearly not a childish troll, and the actual childish troll here is Frank.
Projection! Dunning-Kruger! These aren't Latin words, but they're sure big words! Ooh! Can't you see how adult I am? And I'm a skeptic! A skeptic! Who can be more adult than a global warming skeptic? Eh?
And more evidence of my extremely adult adulthood can be seen from the fact that, in a thread talking about Weaver's defamation suit, I insist on talking about all sorts of things other than Weaver's defamation suit. Trying to talk about a topic on a thread other than the topic of the initial post is a sure sign that I'm trying to start a civilized, reasoned, adult conversation.
And so, let's keep talking about something, anything, anything except the topic of the initial post: Weaver's defamation suit.
Oh dear, the troll thinks I'm actually talking to him/her, when I'm pointing out the vacuity of their "argument" to others here.
Frank, yet another splendid demonstration of Dunning-Kruger! Either that or you're a 3-year-old having a tantrum. You alarmists never cease to entertain me!
And by the way, my original point was related to Weaver's lawsuit in that it was addressing potential fallout from it if it is successful. You would know this if you actually possessed any reading comprehension skills.
And your last few posts had everything do to with the lawsuit, right Frank? Oh, right, you were engaging in your favorite activity: projection.
A couple of recent columns in the National Post:
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=dde6cc16-…
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/04/15/l…
KenH @127,
Wow, just wow. They really are preaching to the party faithful, with plenty of rhetoric thrown in for good measure.
Solomon's article is actually quite tame compared to what he normally writes. I get the feeling that he sourced much of his information from CA....
I'd be curious to see how much he and McIntyre converse, if at all.
Oh dear, the troll thinks I'm actually talking to him/her, when I'm pointing out the vacuity of their "argument" to others here.
Here's a clue, moron: when you post anything on a web site accessible by the public, you are talking to everyone who reads it.
AGW"Skeptic":
Ah yes, there is but one case where denial does not refer to the Holocaust and AGW"Skeptic" has found it. Clever boy.
Attention AGW Skeptic, Andrew30, and any other trolls infesting this place; you'd better go read Weaver's Statement of Claim and try to remember if you are one of the anonymous commenters who is also being sued. Could YOU be John Doe or Richard Roe? Think it over.
A couple of recent columns in the National Post:
Refreshing to see some honesty from the MSM for once on this issue.
Attention AGW Skeptic, Andrew30, and any other trolls infesting this place; you'd better go read Weaver's Statement of Claim and try to remember if you are one of the anonymous commenters who is also being sued. Could YOU be John Doe or Richard Roe? Think it over.
Bring it on, Bubba. I would welcome the opportunity to kick some alarmist ass in court.
Oh dear,
"I would welcome the opportunity to kick some alarmist ass in court."
Someone is delusional and seems to have anger issues.
Wouldn't a true skeptic say something like, "Yes, Foster got most things right (in their opinion, not reality), but I think they got X or Y wrong."
That is just one of many issue with those who claim to be 'skeptical', their skepticism is uni-directional.
"Refreshing to see some honesty from the MSM for once on this issue."
Isn't that something strikingly similar to what Palin said about Faux News?
Those in denial about AGW are completely blind to the tactics and modus operandi of the denialati. Maybe some of them should read "Smoke Screen" by Philip Hilts and compare how these tactics currently being employed mimic those used by the tobacco industry to attack the integrity of scientists researching links between cancers and smoking. Thank God they did not have the internet back then.
Someone is delusional and seems to have anger issues.
This from one who babbles a few paragraphs later about "denialati" and postulates tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Project much?
Isn't that something strikingly similar to what Palin said about Faux News?
Congratulations! A straw man and ad hominem in the same sentence! It's also similar, by the way, to the way you and your ilk are saying about this lawsuit.
Thank God they did not have the internet back then.
Why would anyone want to thank a non-existent deity, unless said individual was delusional?
I wish people would learn to use ad hominem correctly.....
Anyhow, Dr. Weaver has overwhelming support from the scientific community, Dr. Lewis too. In contrast, Corocoran and his ilk seem to have the support of some, shall we say, distinctly murky characters who are wholly disinterested in the facts and reality.
Does anyone here know if this makes it past discovery, how the ruling will be made? That is, by jury or by judge?
With troll input, we actually have a rising trend in background noise, making data analysis harder :)
Trollogenic global confusing.
Subjects where the term "denier" is commonly bandied about:
1. Holocaust denial - or indeed, any historical atrocity
2. Evolution denial
3. Vaccine safety denial
4. AGW denial
5. HIV/AIDS denial
Subjects where those using the term "denier" equate use of that term with denying the holocaust:
1. Holocaust denial
Subjects where those on the receiving end of the label "denier" use the holocaust as a cheap and dishonest diversionary tactic to attack the legitimacy of that label:
1. All of the above.
Back on the subject at hand - I'm not sure if it'll fly (or if I'm reading it wrong - IANAL), but it seems to me that Weaver is trying to hold them to account for allowing the publishing of defamatory cmoments from posters on the message board. That by allowing the comments, they have tacitly approved their content, and that the whole (the article + comments) constitutes a publication in its entirety.
"it seems to me that Weaver is trying to hold them to account for allowing the publishing of defamatory cmoments from posters on the message board. That by allowing the comments, they have tacitly approved their content, and that the whole (the article + comments) constitutes a publication in its entirety."
There's nothing unusual about that, in Canada at least. The National Post is, after all, providing the publishing tool and is hosting and generating revenue from it. What the law expects is for the host to identify who the posters are, and to remove any comments which are libelous upon being notified as such. If the host fails to do so, then the host owns the comments.
In general, Canadian libel law allows the plaintiff to sue anyone and everyone in the chain of publication and circulation. So if a newspaper is sued for libel, it is possible to sue everyone from the copy boy to the corner store.
AGWsceptic may prefer to be referred to as a NAGWaD, a term I proposed in the [ABC chairman thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/abc_chairman_smears_journalist…), comment #103, a while back:
AGWsceptic the NAGWaD. Yep. Everyone's happy.
#140: "How about "non-holocaust anthropogenic global warming deniers", or "NAGWaDs"?"
*
How about 'geociders'?
The would-be killers of the planet through criminal negligence.
Oh my, there has been some entertainment while I've been away.
As I said on another thread, some of the "skeptics" seem to mimic some forms (and vocabulary) of valid argument without generally providing the substance to go with it.
I think I need more popcorn :-)
The National Post rejects that humans contribute to Global Warming or climate change. And its libel insurance will ensure NP readers never get a balanced story and the scientific facts. Hopefully, the insurer will demand better.
It's amazing what you learn when talking to real genuine "sceptics".
My mother-in-law is a long term smoker and is in denial about the effects on her health. She is absolutely a smoking denialist.
However I was completely unaware that this was a systematic attempt by myself to associate her with Holocaust denial.
I would like to personally thank AGWsceptic for pointing out the obvious connotation of referring to someone as a "denialist", and while she continues to cough and choke herself into a terrible state each and every morning after waking up, shall henceforth simply refer to her as being "sceptical" about the link between smoking and certain diseases.
Careful, Mike, any moment now the Holocaust deniers are going to start calling themselves Holocaust sceptics. Then where would we be?
[Mike](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/scientist_fights_back_against.p…).
If you use Google Scholar to search for "cognitive dissonance", you'll see that a significant proportion of the hits have to do with a smoking context.
Denial of harm and cognitive dissonance go hand in hand, it seems.
Mike (144)
A similar scenario has recently unfolded here.
According to previously agreed-to agreements, it was my partner's turn to take the rubbish out last week. The absence of the bin on the roadside is a data point that is in question; however, the presence in the yard of a full-ish bin one day after the regular bin-emptying day appeared to indicate that my partner had bin (sorry, been) neglectful of their duty. In the process of subsequent questioning, my partner said it had in fact bin (damn, been) my turn. I accused my partner of denying it was their turn. In my folly, I now realise my accusations that my partner is an "It's-your-turn-to-take-the-rubbish-bin-out" denier are not just wholly in error: in my ignorance I have equated their actions (or non-actions) with that of the Jewish Holocaust to boot.
As to reparation, I must now refer to myself as being an "It's-your-turn-to-take-the-rubbish-bin-out" sceptic.
RE: #136
This is a civil matter, between Weaver and the NP, so it's judge alone. Canada only has jury trials for criminal matters. (cf. Wikipedia on jury trials and links to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
I'm not a lawyer, but my experience as a witness in Canadian courts has been in front of judge alone in civil trials, or a jury in criminal trials. Canadian judges are appointed, like in most civilized countries, from a list provided by their peers and the law societies, so there's few dingbats and no politicians on the bench.
When we're talking about lawsuits and deniers/septics, don't forget Tim Ball suing Dan Johnson and the Calgary Herald, which was eventually withdrawn, and served only to damage the deniers credibility. A useful outcome, is that why the 'skeptics' haven't mentioned it above?
Thanks Stewart @148.
Aah, yes Tim Ball. The man just does not know when to stop discrediting himself-- even the uber right wing Calgary Herald won't touch him after the fiasco you referred to. Most recent example of Ball shooting himself in the foot was when he spoke to students at UofVic in Canada. Ball was expecting a gullible and friendly crowd, was he ever wrong. The students set him straight.
IMHO, Dr. Weaver has a solid case. There are just so many blatant falsehoods in Corcoran's and Foster's pieces that it will be difficult for the judge to dismiss all of them. These "journalists" should be fired. Gunter too. And maybe that will happen if and when the Toronto Star buys out the NP.
Desmogblog posted articles about Tim Ball's libel suit here:
http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/dan-johnson
If the Toronto Star buys the NP, I'd like to see Gunter, Solomon and the others eat their words first, then get fired.
Unfortunately, a successful lawsuit will have a chilling effect on journalists who want to libel honest scientists...
Oh, wait. That's a good thing.
A blogger here is saying FOX News went to court to assert its right to lie. I doubt that. And it would not surprise me if FOX did not want to sue for allowing such tripe to be seen here.
Ron Cram @ 152:
Apparently you either cannot be bothered to (or simply cannot) read the information in the link provided in comment #5, which demonstrates that Fox did win the right to lie in court.
Rather unsurprising that a Fox-bot has no higher cognitive functions...
Just to clarify this ambiguity
Fox won, in court, the right to lie to its readers/viewers/listeners.
Lying in court (ie perjury) would still be a big no-no.
> ..which demonstrates that Fox did win the right to lie, in court.
Would maybe have fixed it.
Rather like the Demotivational poster "Punctuation", if you've seen it...
;-)