you mean he's NOT??? coulda fooled me... 
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 ...
Be sure to include “and evil man caused it” to the climate change equation. Mann and the other AGW shills should all go down not just as Child abusers, but also as Elder Abusers, too — they make me feel very violated by their lies and corruption that will affect my quality of life.
Pandora’s Box, indeed - here is a link to recent Senate testimony by a Climatologist from Georgia Tech:
We are long past the days of impartially applied justice. Given an Clinton or Obama appointed judge I believe the court will certainly allow it.
The key is the claim Mann engaged in science fraud and it will be decided by a court, not by some rubber stamp committee of his colleagues.
I'm sure they are in touch with the scientists who exposed the hockey stick. That fraud should be easy to prove.
Interesting. So if someone on DU were to make libelous claims, DU could be held for libel?
But, wait! DU is liberal site. No (liberal/Dem) judge would allow that to go forward (using the current Dem favorite, "No standing").
It is interesting for reference as to the method that Penn State used to investigate Mann.
Quoting from the article..
"The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised."
Yep, that is the key to the case.
Why do the globull warmingists now call it climate change? Hot today, chile tamale.
Only in a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany. Or Democrat America.
Here is the quote:
Simberg [the other defendant, not Steyn] called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”
The judge, in allowing the case to move forward to trial, found that while ‘opinions and rhetorical hyperbole’ are protected speech under the First Amendment, statements that call into question a scientist’s work could be understood as factual assertions that go to the ‘heart of scientific integrity.’
“‘To state as a fact that a scientist dishonestly molests or tortures data to serve a political agenda would have a strong likelihood of damaging his reputation within his profession, which is the very essence of defamation,’ he said.”
There is a wealth of information out there that shows how Mann selectively used/misused data to justify his hockey stick graph. Steyn should prevail provided the trial court allows entry into the record of the climate change fraud data and evidence of a conspiracy between Mann and others to fudge data to support their results. Whether that will happen remains to be determined.
It apparently could in Canada...with biased results.
Some pertinent law here.
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/defamationandfirstamendment/
For these reasons, the court set up a different standard for private persons:
We hold that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual.19
This standard means that a private person does not have to show that a defendant acted with actual malice in order to prevail in a defamation suit. The private plaintiff usually must show simply that the defendant was negligent, or at fault. However, the high court also ruled that private defamation plaintiffs could not recover punitive damages unless they showed evidence of actual malice.
In its opinion, the high court also determined that certain persons could be classified as limited-purpose public figures with respect to a certain controversy. The court noted that full-fledged public figures achieve “pervasive fame or notoriety.” However, the court noted that sometimes an individual “injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues.”20 These limited-purpose public figures also have to meet the actual-malice standard.
I agree with Lord Monckton calling America’s top climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, “a fully-paid-up member of the new regime,” who has “one of the unfailing hallmarks of Nazism and Fascism everywhere.”
Dr. Judith Curry, one of the war sits involved in the global warming causes worse hurricanes study...but who since then nonetheless is intellectually honest enough to be ashamed of some of the more outrageous warmest stuff from her colleagues.
Warmists
you mean he's NOT??? coulda fooled me...
Michael Mann: The Penn State professor who went from stormless scientist to climate crusader
Actually, shouldn’t the Chesters be suing Mark for comparing climate scientists to them?
Mann should have used the Larry Flynt “humor is a FIRST Amendment Right” defense, “You’re a Mother F-c-er analogy”, instead using the “Shower Analogy”, the latter was approved by the SCOTUS IIRC. I would guess it is not yet too late.
Larry how are those he/she/it dirty diapers working out for you?
Obviously s/h/b “CEI’s Rand Simberg s/h/used”.
Shutting off my beer for the evening.
That’s Simberg’s metaphore, not Steyn’s. It sickens me that the judge is apparently allowing “quotes” to be lifted out of an opinion piece instead of looking at the article in its totality and allowing the suit to go forward.
Our judges are quite politically corrupt, it would be nice if Steyn does for us what he did for Canada.
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.