Climatologist Michael Mann wins defamation case: what it means for scientists

Discussion in 'Science' started by Bowerbird, Feb 13, 2024.

  1. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Paper money is delusional enough thank you very much. Don't hold your breath.
     
  2. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    92,520
    Likes Received:
    73,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Hah! Maaaate! I had the direct experience (and you can ask the mods about this) of a right wing idiot who logged on one evening when there were only a few of us here - he would engage someone - start a “fight” then escalate to threatening to trace their IPs and come to their homes and shoot them. So, I made him focus on me. Figured if he was that much of an idiot he was in for a long wet drive across the Pacific Ocean.

    in other words there is a vast and huge difference between taking you down “verbally” because you are in disagreement and someone and threatening to rape a spouse

    https://scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/13/morano-abets-threats/

    Australian scientists had to go into hiding
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    92,520
    Likes Received:
    73,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well, maybe that is because they know more than you about the subject
     
  4. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    92,520
    Likes Received:
    73,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    upload_2024-2-18_13-47-21.jpeg

    Lols!
     
  5. Pieces of Malarkey

    Pieces of Malarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2022
    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes Received:
    1,546
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess being an Australian you missed the "Summer of Love" here in the US when Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta, etc. burned.

    But then again, that wasn't just nasty emails so I guess it doesn't count.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  6. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,546
    Likes Received:
    9,917
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truth telling? Remember you posted a thread of Mann being interviewed by Al Franken? And Mann gave out a bunch of disinformation in the interview? Even contradicted peer reviewed studies the IPCC report on and accept?

    Mann has no interest in the truth. Nor do folks like you who believe the disinformation that emanates from his dialogues. You posted easily verifiable disinformation from Mann on the internet on this very forum. And you don’t care. Why are you referencing truth on the internet now?


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1074468998/


     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  7. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    28,034
    Likes Received:
    17,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In other climate-related legal news from DC, there's a verdict going against another virtue-signaler.
    Stanford prof who sued critics loses appeal against $500,000 in legal fees
    [​IMG]
    Mark Jacobson

    Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor who sued a journal and a critic for $10 million before dropping the case, has lost an appeal he filed in 2022 to avoid paying defendants more than $500,000 in legal fees.

    As we have previously reported, Jacobson:

    …who studies renewable energy at Stanford, sued in September 2017 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for defamation over a 2017 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that critiqued a 2015 article he had written in the same journal. He sued PNAS and the first author of the paper, Christopher Clack, an executive at a firm that analyzes renewable energy.

    The fees, based on an anti-SLAPP statute, are “designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Jacobson tried to argue that, by dropping the suit, he was no longer liable for legal fees because the statute requires that defendants “prevail.”

    But the three judges in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disagreed. Justice Joshua Deahl, writing on behalf of himself and colleagues, held:

    under Jacobson’s preferred approach, a plaintiff could engage in harassing and meritless litigation up until the point at which they sense the court might dismiss the case, and then voluntarily dismiss the suit themselves, all the while keeping the threat of refiling hanging over the defendants’ heads and running up their legal bills.

    The specter of repeat litigation by Jacobson is not farfetched. In his briefing to this court, Jacobson continues to take issue with “the refusal of Dr. Clack and NAS to correct the false facts to this day, in reckless disregard for the truth.” Much of his brief rehashes his claims that NAS and Clack defamed him and he persists in condemning Clack’s article. In arguing that NAS and Clack have not “prevailed,” Jacobson repeatedly asserts that he retains the ability to refile his defamation suit, “keeping the defendant at risk.”

    Indeed, Jacobson told us in a statement – available here – he is “evaluating whether to appeal the DC decision to the full DC Appellate court”:

    It appears the court decided to set a precedent, ensuring that future voluntary dismissals before a ruling in similar-type cases would be subject to the risk of a fee award. . . .
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    3,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But much more likely, it is because I tell the truth and they are liars.
     
    Jack Hays likes this.
  9. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    28,034
    Likes Received:
    17,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not sure how the strike-through got there. I didn't do it.
     
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    28,034
    Likes Received:
    17,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    bringiton likes this.
  11. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    28,034
    Likes Received:
    17,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The verdict was a setback for science, but then again Mann's lawsuit was always about his ambition, not the science.
    Science by Jury: Michael Mann's Defamation Case

    Jeryl Bier, Substack

    A well-worn set of arguments underscoring the urgency of addressing climate change is familiar to any consumer of mainstream media. Less ubiquitous is the dissenting view: climate change is not the catastrophe activists have warned about for decades. While earth has warmed about one degree Celsius over the last 50 years, this counterargument goes, weather-related disasters have declined, food production has exploded, and living standards around the globe have never been higher.

    Those developments are good news on their own. They’re also important context for public debates over what, if anything, governments and other institutions should “do about” climate change. Pointing out holes in climate disaster scenarios, even stridently or mockingly or rudely, should not put anyone on the wrong end of a defamation lawsuit. But a recent D.C. Superior Court case in which two political commentators were fined more than $1 million for challenging the conclusions of Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann has set that alarming precedent.

    Not only has the verdict emboldened those who would happily dismantle the First Amendment, the inevitable chilling of speech that will accompany it threatens the progress of science that makes modern life possible. . . .
     
    Pieces of Malarkey and bringiton like this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,851
    Likes Received:
    16,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seriously, you think this is legitimate scientific discourse?

    "US climate scientist Michael Mann has prevailed in a lawsuit that accused two conservative commentators of defamation for challenging his research and comparing him to a convicted child molester."
     
    Media_Truth likes this.
  13. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This poor guy was put through hell and high water.
     
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    28,034
    Likes Received:
    17,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's free speech. Mann has routinely publicly insulted those who disagree with him, so I don't feel sorry for him.
     
    Ddyad and Pieces of Malarkey like this.
  15. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,112
    Likes Received:
    6,795
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Slander is not free speech.
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    28,034
    Likes Received:
    17,721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But satire is.
     
    Ddyad and bringiton like this.
  17. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's another pretty good article on this trial and the outcome.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/...el-mann-wins-1-million-in-defamation-lawsuit/

    “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement...

    Conservatives had framed Mann’s trial as though climate science itself were taking the stand....

    “Michael Mann & Mark Steyn will battle in court,” she continued. “The case will explore the hockey stick climate graph that rattled the world. Mark Steyn claims it’s a fraud. Michael Mann believes it is our future....


    “Today’s verdict vindicates Mike Mann’s good name and reputation,” said Pete Fontaine, chair of the environmental practice at the law firm Cozen O’Connor. “It also is a big victory for truth and scientists everywhere who dedicate their lives to answering vital scientific questions impacting human health and the planet.”
     
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,851
    Likes Received:
    16,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey - you should give Trump's lawyers that excuse!
     
  19. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    3,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    3,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It actually became about the US civil "justice" system. When I saw that Steyn was representing himself, I knew he was virtually certain to lose: "A man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." -- Abraham Lincoln

    There are limited data available on how successful self-representation is. In traffic court, it seems to be easy to win because the police usually don't even show up: it's not worth their time to prosecute a minor speeding ticket. But in family court, for example, plaintiffs who have attorneys are an order of magnitude more likely to get a restraining order than those who represent themselves.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  21. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Laughable woke betrayal"? - interesting review for a magazine that for all practical purposes, prints layman summaries of scientific journals.
     
  22. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    3,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you can't tell SciAm is laughable woke bull$#!+, not layman summaries of scientific journals, and has been for decades, then it is because you are dealing in laughable woke bull$#!+ yourself.
     
  23. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So bitter! I know that FAUX News has made a lot of their constituents this way, by continuously inciting angry responses since the '90s. Don't forget that they recently lost a $840M judgement to Dominion Voting Machines for allowing liars on their network.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    3,083
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dishonesty is bad. That's not bitterness. It's just a fact.
    <yaawn> Too bad I don't watch Faux Noise, other than for amusement when they do something particularly stupid.
     
  25. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,554
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A friend of mine told me that he no longer watches Faux News, and then he started quoting from Newsmax :bleh:
     

Share This Page