Posted on 01/30/2014 3:17:04 PM PST by artichokegrower
It’s hardly notable when a climate scientist’s findings come under attack from right wing pundits, but it definitely turns heads if they compare that scientist to a child molester. Even more unusual is if that scientist—in this case, Penn State climatologist Michael Mann—retaliates by suing for libel.
(Excerpt) Read more at montereycountyweekly.com ...
Poor ol' Mark Steyn getting sued again. Didn't the entire nation of Canada sue him once?
Well child molester is pretty low of the low. In fact, there is only one niche lower: politician. But then, I [essentially] repeat myself.
My prediction is at the end of the day Michael Mann’s libel suit will do every bit as much for him as Oscar Wilde’s suit did for him.
What exactly constitutes discovery in these cases?
He’s more of a child abuser for pimping this damaging crap and scaring children.
[ Well child molester is pretty low of the low. In fact, there is only one niche lower: politician. But then, I [essentially] repeat myself. ]
Child Molesters and Progressive Politicians are essentially the same in their tactics.
They lure the innocent/ignorant into their vans/votes with the promise of free candy/stuff then they screw them over repeatedly.
Climate Change shills are also like child molesters that are relatives, they will say don’t tell anyone about this or that our data is faked or I will make you sorry by telling the people around you that you are bad child/person when in fact you are the victim of the molester that is making up lies about you.
But that is my take.
I think Mark Steyn’s argument has merit.
Mark needs to get US citizenship so he can tell Canada and their lack of free speech to go pound sand.
Comparing someone to a child molester in style, but not actual deed is not the same as calling him a child molester.
You ask an outstanding question because to my knowledge no other alarmist has filed such a suit. I should think the defendants will be asking for all of Mann’s research files that he has stonewalled at producing for anyone to check his work. I would want all the Climategate emails. Mr. Mann may have opened Pandora’s box by exposing his work to someone he can’t control.
Well, this is pedophile state, and he is part of their staff.
Good question.
Our noble scientist may have opened a can of worms he would wish closed.
The heart of this case is not the child molestation comparison, it’s the claim that Mann’s work is fraudulent.
In the final analysis, that determination will come down to the definition assigned “fraudulent,” and to arguments about validity of various methods of statistical analysis of Mann’s data.
One up side is that Mann will probably be forced, for the first time, to actually release his raw data.
The last time Steyn tangled on a vaguely similar issue, he not only won, but Canada repealed the law under which he had been charged and dismantled the entire court system he was tried in.
Climate change deniers? Oh, come on. No one denies that the climate changes. Hell, it changes here daily.
The case is being appealed, but the initial ruling holds that the host of a site can be held liable for the statements made by the posters.
As far as Mann goes, when one considers the implications of the fable, the hockey stick, and the damage done to science and scientific discourse and inquiry, not to mention the economic devastation wrought in the name of stopping a natural process attributed to humans (but in hiatus), merely destroying one child's innocence and damaging them for life (not a crime I view lightly) pales in comparison to what has been done to billions of people.
Not that climate change denial should not be illegal. And the harshest penalties possible imposed on deniers. Public hangings ought to make them come around to the Democrat way of thinking.
That’s what I thought when I read it as well.
I wonder if Mann’s legal counsel has explained to him he might have to release data of some sort.
Steyn was actually making a comparison between the respective university cover ups, not directly comparing Mann to a child molester.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt"? That sounds like a suspiciously high burden of proof for a civil case.
It will be interesting to see how Mann fares in an arena not necessarily sympathetic to "scientists".
The child molester comparison was in how Penn State whitewashed both investigations of him and of Sandusky in pretty much the same way, and both investigations included very similar statements made by the same people in Penn State’s administration.
I hate to break an ancient Freeper tradition. Do you think I can be forgiven?
To be fair, I’ve been following this case for a long time.
The interesting thing here, to me, is that Mann claims the privileges of a private citizen and a disinterested scientist, while very obviously acting as a partisan public figure and an activist promoting particular policies. I doubt he can be both.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.