Skip to comments.Judge allows climate scientist compared to child molester to sue for libel.
Posted on 01/30/2014 3:17:04 PM PST by artichokegrower
Its hardly notable when a climate scientists 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 scientistin this case, Penn State climatologist Michael Mannretaliates 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.
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.
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 scientists 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.
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 Americas top climatologist, NASAs 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.
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 “CEIs 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.
Force is all that liberals understand. I wish conservatives were willing to get down in the mud and fight the left on an equal basis. The Left doesn't best their opponents in the arena of ideas, they use lawfare to destroy conservatives. We could use a couple junkyard dog law firms to financially destroy the lives of a few prominent rats.
Mark Steyn’s crime
Football and Hockey
By Mark Steyn
July 15, 2012
In the wake of Louis Freehs report on Penn States complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valleys other scandal:
Im referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps its time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much weve also learned about his and others hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be 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.
Not sure Id have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change hockey-stick graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to investigate Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.
If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what wont it cover up? Whether or not hes the Jerry Sandusky of climate change, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his investigation by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
After all, I have no doubt the courts would pursue DU with the same vigour they have pursued the videotaped rants of Malik Shabazz intended to chase away white voters (none at all).
These numb-nuts are so stupid, they hold their AGW conferences in the winter when it is snowing up a storm. That still doesn’t stop them from saying that the snow is a direct result of AGW. Good ol’ Bette Midler is on Breitbart saying just that today. These are very stupid people who work for the Enemy - they should be openly ridiculed for being such moronic shills.
Here’s the real goal.
A defamation lawsuit may kill National Review
He has a point...