"We didn't get Zimmerman, but we'll get steyn..."
Posted on 07/26/2013 12:24:09 AM PDT by neverdem
Remember when scientists and other truth-seekers used to get all riled up about the way the Catholic Church treated Galileo? The outcry was not over the fact that Galileo was a "peer-reviewed" researcher, and therefore beyond question. Quite the contrary: the argument was that, from the point of view of the quest for truth, no one, including the representatives of official orthodoxy and authority, ought to be regarded as beyond question. In the Michael Mann lawsuit against Mark Steyn and National Review, it is the "award-winning researcher" who is joining the fight for Church orthodoxy, while the defendants are the persecuted Galileos.
Mann, of course, is the creator of the famous "hockey stick graph" that has been employed doggedly throughout the doctrinaire climate science community and the mainstream media as proof that the Earth has shown a marked and unprecedented increase in global mean temperature during the brief period of industrial society's extreme CO2 production, which increase is consequently cited as proof that man's industrial activity is causing the temperature rise. Let us leave aside the climate religion's little logical problem, namely the contradiction between (a) its complete dependence on the premise that rising CO2 levels can and do have an immediate and substantial effect on global temperature, and (b) its attempts to dismiss the significance of the fact that global temperature has not increased significantly since 1995 while CO2 emissions have continued to rise, on the grounds that this is supposedly too short a period to prove anything.
The concern in this context is not so much the truth or falsity of the global warming theory, but the implications of this lawsuit, and its social importance, should Mann actually win.
Steyn, along with many researchers on whom he has leaned in developing his critique, have questioned both the methods...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Appointed by the bent one when I searched the name.
bump
bump
I am astonished by the inability of the judge to write a grammatically correct sentence that says what she wants it to say.
Sadly, after looking at the judge’s picture, I am no longer so surprised.
"We didn't get Zimmerman, but we'll get steyn..."
Someone is going to write a “Hitchhikers Guide to Liberalism” one of these days
It appears, although it is not clear because of the author' s negligence in presenting the facts of the case and the scope of the judge's ruling, that the court has denied a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in the pleadings or for summary judgment. In either case, all facts are to be taken to be true which aid the respondent's legal position.
It is not clear but it seems that the judge is simply saying that the question whether Mann committed fraud in his studies as a question of fact which must be determined by a hearing because it relates to whether or not the defense of truth will avail Marc Steyn and the other defendants. If this is so, there is nothing exceptional about the judge's ruling, however exceptional her grammar may be.
Stupid and arrogant. She makes the judge in the Zimmerman case look like Oliver Wendell Holmes....
Can you imagine the judge’s verdict? A separate trial will be required to determine what it means.
The judge should have ruled that it does not matter if he knowingly committed fraud, because the other side has the freedom of speech and the freedom to state their opinion
Not by Steyn, but about Steyn. Your call.
I haven’t looked into it much, but if I did I suspect I’d agree with the General.
The judge was probably correct in her ruling, however poorly worded.
The questions dismissed by the judge are ones that should be determined at trial, not in a pre-trial hearing.
I have no freedom of speech to state that you are a fraud. Or rather, I do, since the government has no right to stop me from saying it, but I have no protection against your suing me for making the statement.
Such a statement is libel, if untrue and defamatory to you. Which means a trial is required to determine if those two conditions exist.
I am unclear why Mann, a person who has spent a decade or more desparately seeking public attention, doesn’t qualify as a public figure who has less protection in libel cases.
I am also really unsure why anybody in his right mind would intentionally start a war of words with Mark Steyn. The last group to try it not only lost their case, they lost the law and kangaroo court system that was their ideal.
Liberals have come to so dominate universities that even a Republican would have a tough time finding a conservative with the background to be a judge.
The left have taken over nearly all the machinery of civilization.
They have the media, education, law, journalism, and now much of the science and tech world.
We once had Reagan as President. And after that, two more conservatives.
All that power squandered while the left built a Leviathan.
I wouldn’t count the Bushes as “conservatives”.
The EPA?!!!
Now there is an unassailably unbiased arbiter of fact!
/S LOL
I confess: I have never finished a Douglas Adams novel. Started a couple, but somehow...
Did you loose your towel?
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.