57 thoughts on “Climate Change Versus Free Speech”
Who would ever criticize, let alone belittle any scientist or academic knowing that you could go 14 months in court without actually making any progress in clearing your name.
The case would have been thrown out, or never filed, if the statements had merely been critical or belittling. The case goes on because the statements go beyond mere criticism to accuse Mann of professional misconduct.
In another thread Wodun pointed to Courtney Love’s recent Twitter defamation trial; Love was sued by her ex-lawyer after tweeting that the attorney “was bought off.” Love won the case — the attorney was treated as a public figure, and the jury was persuaded by Love’s testimony that she believed the charge to be true when she made it, so the plaintiffs failed to show that Love had acted with malice.
But the case went to court, for a jury to decide, because the law says that if Love had been acting with malice — e.g. if she’d just made up the bribery allegation — the plaintiff was entitled to damages. You are free to tell the world that you think your ex-lawyer botched your case, but you aren’t allowed to smear her by declaring that she was bought off. And only a trial can answer the difference between a sincere allegation and one made out of malice.
Similarly, you are free to say that Mann is a terrible scientist who is completely wrong about everything, but you aren’t allowed to publicly say that he takes bribes, or embezzles funds, or fabricates data, just to give your criticism some extra oomph.
Rand may well win his case — actual malice is a steep burden. But by publicly accusing Mann of fraud, he gave Mann the right to put the case in front of a jury, with all the expenses that entails.
just to give your criticism some extra oomph
I guess when Mann takes to twitter and does the same thing the defendants have done here, he doesn’t need any more oomph. Or… Twitter?? Come on, no one takes that seriously. Oomph isn’t required. Or… Twitter has a secret oomph booster button, which comes with it’s own legal mechanism to render any broadcaster immune.
Or maybe the universe at large has properly concluded that Mann is a noise maker who isn’t worth the time it takes to consume anything he produces any longer. Regardless of how much oomph he adds to it. So he’s taken to suing others to get the attention he can’t get any other way.
Hope you’re content with that.
Sorry about the double post, but this got misplaced:
“Rand may well win his case — actual malice is a steep burden. But by publicly accusing Mann of fraud, he gave Mann the right to put the case in front of a jury, with all the expenses that entails.”
So, basically you are saying that Mann is engaging in “lawfare”. With little to no hope of winning the case, his only purpose can be to harass and stifle further criticism.
I don’t know what Mann’s odds of proving malice are, but he can certainly hope to stifle further claims that he’s committed fraud.
Lol, you do admit the suit is a weapon of intimidation and not about the purity of Mann’s work. This isn’t about preventing future claims of fraud but attacking critics and causing them harm.
Mann suffered no harm from what Rand wrote, other than some bruised feelings but Rand and the other defendants are suffering real harm through Mann’s lawfare.
Considering Mann constantly says things worse than what Rand did, the suit is the height of hypocrisy
If Mann made false defamatory statements of fact that are “worse” than saying someone committed scientific fraud, he’s open to being sued himself. Goose, gander.
Except normal people have better things to do with their time and money than going around suing people.
” Goose, gander”
You never treat geese and ganders the same way. I guarantee that if someone sued Mann for his statements you would cry free speech.
Or any others.
Tell me, Jim… just out of curiosity. Do you think President Bush misled the public about the basis for removing Saddam Hussein from power? Do you think you, or any of your sympathetic fellows, should be legally prohibited from claiming that he did?
Yes, I think the Bush administration misled the public about the basis for removing Hussein from power. No, I don’t think any court would find me liable for damages for saying so, since the statement in question is a statement of opinion.
If, on the other hand, I published an article stating that Bush had ordered the 9/11 attacks, or embezzled from the government, or robbed a liquor store, I would be opening myself up to being sued, since those are defamatory statements of fact.
“…since those are defamatory statements of fact.”
Hundreds of people have made those silly allegations. They are not “defamatory statements of fact.” They are statements of lunatics. There is no injury from such sources, hence no defamation.
“No, I don’t think any court would find me liable for damages for saying so, since the statement in question is a statement of opinion.”
Nobody asked you that question. Alleging that the Bush administration willfully misled the public is a very serious charge. It does not matter if, as you say, no court would find you liable for damages. No court is likely to find in favor of Mann in this case, either, as you, yourself, have stated.
You are evading the question: Do you think you should face the threat of being sued for claiming Bush misled us into war? Do you think you should have to carefully weigh your words and figuratively look over your shoulder whenever you criticize those who make critical decisions affecting your life?
If you answer “no”, then you must be consistent and answer “no” to the question of whether others should have their thoughts policed regarding a public figure like Mann. Anything less is rank hypocrisy.
So, it seems that you think Mann is going to court out of spite and has little chance of winning. Sure he has every right to bring suit but let’s be clear why he is doing it, lawfare to silience critics. The Love case shows how unstable Mann’s suit is and also emphasizes how the process is part of the harassment. IIRC, Love was sued in 2009. Should Mann’s suit last as long, then he will have achieved his goal, win or lose, to cause harm to his critics. Mann doesn’t need to win the case to get what he wants.
Lawfare is a common tactic of militant environmentalists.
Also, you are free to say Mann fabricated data or results if you believe it to be true. You are also allowed to say Penn State’s investigation was a sham if you believe it to be true. This is what the Love case ephasized.
It is crazy how fast you sacrifice a core ideal of your professed political ideology rather than hold your friends to the same standard you hold everyone else.
The freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is not among my (or anyones?) core ideals. I wouldn’t defend anyone’s right to do that.
The Love case took years of pre-trial preparation and an 8 day trial to settle because Love made a defamatory claim that she had no particularly good reason to believe. She got off by convincing the jury that her confusion and paranoia were such that she believed it anyway. She’s hardly a profile in First Amendment courage.
you are free to say Mann fabricated data or results if you believe it to be true
You have to have some reason to believe it to be true — you can’t just like the idea of it being true. Just deciding that it’s true falls under the “reckless disregard for the truth” clause.
There is a mountain of reasons to believe the claim to be true. The more one digs into Mann’s work, his behavior, his e-mails in Climategate #1 and #2, the more likely one is to believe that he committed fraud, or at least gross scientific misconduct. The evidence was so damning that Penn State was compelled to conduct a formal investigation, but then conveniently three out three of the four charges and didn’t bother interviewing any of Mann’s detractors, convincing many observers, even journalists at The Atlantic that the investigation was a whitewash.
But apparently nobody is allowed to point that out because, um, SQUIRREL!
Judith Curry has had a lot of people urging her to file a similar suit against Michael Mann because she has a much stronger case that Mann has against anyone, but she says it’s not worth the bother. She also worries that his suit will forever harm the open practice of science.
The more one digs into Mann’s work, his behavior, his e-mails in Climategate #1 and #2, the more likely one is to believe that he committed fraud
That’s a very odd thing to say. Mann either committed fraud, or he didn’t. “Digging into” his emails might lower your opinion of him, but it either proves that he committed fraud, or it doesn’t. Multiple bodies have looked at those emails without finding a smoking gun.
Not liking the guy, and thinking of him as the type of person who would do terrible things, is not the same thing as knowing that he is guilty of this specific misconduct.
The evidence was so damning
The evidence obviously wasn’t damning, as Mann remains un-damned. No body with any authority has formerly charged him with misconduct.
even journalists at The Atlantic
If you are referring to that Crook piece, he complains that the investigations were inadequate because they only cleared Mann et al of scientific fraud.
The “multiple bodies” had a vested interest in protecting their own. The UK inquiry didn’t even look at Mann, by the way, because he wasn’t a UK citizen. Climatology has become the flagship program of science, and as such many scientists and concerned politicians are highly reluctant to criticize any part of it, lest they be denounced by “the team” and the team’s legions of environmental activists. In the UK inquiry, they didn’t even bother to question the team’s key detractors who were prominently discussed in the e-mails.
This is why the term “whitewash” has been bandied about for years regarding these investigations.
That’s a very odd thing to say. Mann either committed fraud, or he didn’t.
I too can just tell when someone is committing fraud. It’s a common superpower among the internet ranter set. There’s no actual need to consider what the common mortal would call “evidence”.
“The freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is not among my (or anyones?) core ideals.”
The hell it isn’t! You just accused GW Bush of fraud against the American people upthread. How do you sleep at night?
A reasonable jury would find it reasonable that the Bush administration
lied about the causes and requirements for the Iraq war. Ranging
from the Downing street memos to the hundreds of lies and
misrepresentations.
So, the freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is, indeed, among your core ideals. Apparently, some people’s freedom’s are more equal than others.
How do you know what a reasonable jury would think? There was never a trial for them to make a judgement. That so many people disagree with your imagineary alternate universe is a pretty strong indicator that a reasonable jury wouldn’t necessarily agree with your opinion.
The case was never made that Bush lied as opposed to being wrong. And the hundreds of tons of yellow cake and other chemical weapons stockpiles that were removed from Iraq shows he was partly right.
Also, wasn’t Blair cleared of the very wrong doing you allege? Are you calling into question the validity of the investigation? Do you realize how that makes you look right now?
“The freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is not among my (or anyones?) core ideals”
Freedom of speech is no longer one of your core ideals? Just a couple posts up you defended the right to casually accuse Bush of committing fraud. Why is it that you always want the Democrats to operate under a different, and lower, set of standards than what Democrats hold others to?
“The Love case took years of pre-trial preparation and an 8 day trial to settle because Love made a defamatory claim that she had no particularly good reason to believe.”
No it didn’t take so long to work its way through the system because, “she had no particularly good reason to believe.” It took so long because that is how the legal system works and it is why Mann is using the legal system to bring frivolous lawsuit against his critics.
“You have to have some reason to believe it to be true ”
You mean like a shoddy investigation by a college that has demonstrated the capability to overlook the wrong doing of its staff when it comes to serious crimes like sexually assaulting a multitude of children? It is easy to come up with any number of reasons for why someone would disagree with Mann and/or the investigation into his actions. This is why the burden of proof is so high.
” Just deciding that it’s true falls under the “reckless disregard for the truth” clause.”
Lol, no.
if Mann had a frivolous case, the judge would have dismissed it in pre-trial.
2 Superior court judges have upheld the case as meeting the minimums to go to trial.
Right. And, if “Separate but Equal” were inherently unfair, the judges in Plessy v. Ferguson wouldn’t have upheld it.
You are correct in the sense that frivilous has a meaning in legalese but in the broader context of the word, a suit can be considered frivilous and still go to trial. Even in the legal arena, though, the definition of frivilous isn’t a constant.
Also, that a judge allows a case to go forward says nothing about its merit or chance of winning.
This caught my attention:
If the case proceeds, life will merely get worse, as the defendants could be subject to discovery, or in other words a full cavity search of every piece of communication generated over a court-mandated period of time.
When the suit was filed the defendants were happily anticipating subjecting the plaintiffs to the discovery process. Weingarten seems to think the reverse will be the case.
Can someone with pretensions to legal expertise sort this out for us?
“Can someone with pretensions to legal expertise sort this out for us?”
No need. Just basic psychology. This is the phase known as “posturing” or “trash talking”. Its purpose is to “psych” the other side out, hoping to bring them to the bargaining table on favorable terms.
Nothing anyone claims or says at this point should be taken at face value.
I am no lawyer but I assume discovery cuts both ways. I am not sure what Mann thinks he will learn. The allegation that AGW critics are funded by oil companies is a myth. They wont find any coordination between Shell and Rand.
I do wonder, if Rand’s defense will find some motivation for why the suit was filled that shows the intent was harassment.
I’d assume discovery would be fairly broad ranging.
Rand could most likely get access to Mann’s Research notebooks, datasets and
software methodology.
Mann will likely be able to get Rand’s emails discussing terms and postures at CEI and
wether he had copies of various investigations of Mann and Mann’s papers, or any other
papers on climate science.
Mann will likely be able to get Rand’s emails discussing terms and postures at CEI
No he wouldn’t, because they are non-existent.
and wether he had copies of various investigations of Mann and Mann’s papers, or any other
papers on climate science.
Which I also don’t have. Why would I, when they’re available on line?
I know it’s a futile request, but stop being an idiot.
I agree, the only thing his lawyers are likely to discover is that there is no there three. That isn’t going to help your case at all, either.
“Rand may well win his case — actual malice is a steep burden. But by publicly accusing Mann of fraud, he gave Mann the right to put the case in front of a jury, with all the expenses that entails.”
So, basically you are saying that Mann is engaging in “lawfare”. With little to no hope of winning the case, his only purpose can be to harass and stifle further criticism.
You said it twice but say it a million times and it wouldn’t sink in for Jim. It is always interesting to see Jim’s mask slip especially when he isn’t self aware enough to notice.
I didn’t bother reading passed this bit: Got that? Make fun of a climate scientist and be prepared to lawyer up.
“Make fun of”?? Weingarten’s own words prove he’s full of crap, God knows making fun of climate scientists is literally a full time commitment for a lot of people.
And that’s probably your key problem. You never read past some certain bit, and its the stuff past those bits that conveys important information. In contrast, the skeptics read all the other side’s arguments, instead of fanning themselves like a horrified Victorian prude who won’t listen to a single word that might call into question their quite perfect view of the world.
Just for you George I read the rest of it, this bit wasn’t too encouraging:
All of this is a way of saying that if you write a blog post calling a scientist, let alone a climate scientist a fraud, you better retract that statement or your life will become a living hell.
So the 1st amendment means it’s OK to publicly claim a lawyer acts illegally in his professional capacity? It’s OK to publicly accuse a doctor of unethical behavior? It’s OK to publicly accuse a business proprietor of lying to his customers and selling goods illegally? None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?
I don’t claim to know, with any certainty, how the law is enforced in such cases in the US, so these questions aren’t rhetorical.
I found this bit interesting: **[Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer. Any technical aspects of the case are simplified, and based purely on my reading of the documents of the case at hand.]
Well that explains a lot.
Steyn’s comment: “were Dr. Mann to prevail, it would nevertheless be the case that his peculiarly thin skin and insecurities would enjoy greater protection under U.S. law than they do in Britain, Canada, Australia, and other jurisdictions. It would thus be a major setback for the First Amendment.”
Is just BS, several lawyers have made the point, when discussing this case, that without the 1st Amendment, and the way it is interpreted these days, defendants in defamation cases outside the US don’t have the protection that they have in the US.
Defamation cases in which acts of professional misconduct are alleged are just not covered by freedom of speech legislation in other jurisdictions.
George, your claim that “skeptics read all the other side’s arguments” is also BS, very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change. Several times I discussion with me “skeptics” have made it clear they avoid reading material they know they’re going to disagree with.
very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change
Whatever the hell that means.
And yet public opinion has clearly shifted away from you and your fellow evangelists’ positions. Why is that Andrew? Because the mainstream media has been pounding away at you and supporting the skeptics?
That’s onion-caliber hilarious.
Because National Review, CEI and other right-leaning media have such a large audience that it’s been impossible to get your message out?
Why do you think the tide has turned Andrew? Why do you think the average gal on the street is at this point in time much more likely to roll her eyes and state “I’m really just skeptical that we need to worry about CO2”?
“very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change.”
Should have been: “very few, other than a few scientists, would bother to read a paper (or understand it) supporting the IPCC position on climate change.”
Why do you think the tide has turned Andrew?
Several reasons:
1.The immediacy of the threat CAGW was supposed to pose was overplayed, people lose interest in a threat that’s coming slower than a steamroller.
2. The “pause”
3. The economic downturn, people don’t have money to spend on the distant maybes in life.
I agree with all 3 of your reasons.
“So the 1st amendment means it’s OK to publicly claim a lawyer acts illegally in his professional capacity? It’s OK to publicly accuse a doctor of unethical behavior? It’s OK to publicly accuse a business proprietor of lying to his customers and selling goods illegally”
Yes, if you believe your statements to be true and they are about public people. You seem to be arguing that any criticism is illegal under free speech. That isn’t how America operates and shouldn’t be how free speech works in general.
Mann should just put his big girl panties on and let his work speak for itself rather than using lawfare to silence his critics. Mann regularly defames people by equating them with holocaust deniers but while I think his characterization of people is disgusting and reprehensible I would never encourage people suing him for being a DB.
“None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?”
Oh, people can sue for anything. That doesn’t mean they will win or that their position has merit just because they can sue.
“very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change.”
You know the same is true for AGW alarmists. Gore, Obama, and most public advocates of AGW have never read any papers. What is worse, that laymen who are skeptical of AGW don’t read all the reports or that people in power who write and implement regulations and those who use militant activism to achieve their political goals don’t read any scientific reports?
To me, it is much scarier that the people who are advocating for drastic change in political, economic, moral, and scientific systems haven’t done their due diligence.
You seem to be arguing that any criticism is illegal under free speech.
“None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?”
OK, I should have added “and even when those making the allegations know them to be untrue”
Wow, I’ve been spitting out even more typos than usual 🙁
“when those making the allegations know them to be untrue”
That is pretty hard to prove even if you cede the point that someone thought they were making an untrue statement. And if that point isn’t ceded, it is even harder. Do you think that Rand believes the hockey stick is valid and that Penn State’s investigation was above board?
You could say he is wrong but you couldn’t say that isn’t what he believes.
Think of it this way, being wrong on something doesn’t mean you lied. Do we say students lied on test questions they got wrong? The flip side is that Rand is right about the flaws of Mann’s work and the investigation into them. That doesn’t mean your support of Mann or the investigations are lies, right? Unlike Jim, I get the feeling you are arguing beliefs out of principles that you actually hold.
Well, I think we’ve well established that Rand and Steyn believed it to be true, and with good reason.
The purpose of libel laws isn’t to suppress speech and debate, it’s to keep people from using slander when they don’t have anything juicy enough for blackmail and can’t manage to frame their victim for some heinous crime. That’s the “malice” part that’s required, marking what was said not as the usual gossip or disgust with someone (such as how Democrats always accuse Republicans of being in bed with big oil), but intentionally fabricating a story in hopes of injuring someone, such as making up details about a sex and bribery scandal out of thin air and trying to pass it off as investigative journalism.
In Mann’s case, he was already the subject of numerous investigations for all sorts of misconduct. It’s not as if Rand made up some wholly new charge and tried to pass off the fiction as something he’d diligently uncovered (such as alleging that Mann was having an affair with a co-ed or something).
Second, Mann is a very public figure, probably more well known to adults than Katy Perry or Lady what’s-her-face. Can such people sue anyone who writes a review calling them a talentless auto-tuned hack whose last album sucks when it is obvious that the reviewers strongly-held opinion is just that?
Yet future generations aren’t going to face poverty because everyone was afraid to express what they thought of Lada something’s last album. They might face poverty if they don’t stand up to scientifically incompetent bullies who are serial litigants and want to stifle Third World and First World economic growth to satisfy their own vanity.
“So the 1st amendment means it’s OK to publicly claim a lawyer acts illegally in his professional capacity? It’s OK to publicly accuse a doctor of unethical behavior? It’s OK to publicly accuse a business proprietor of lying to his customers and selling goods illegally? None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?”
These are all private individuals. In the US, there is an important distinction made between private and public personalities.
There is a bit of a gray area between public officials and public figures. In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the SCOTUS held that “while news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials under the Supreme Court’s New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision (1964), they may still be liable to public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked.”.
However, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Court demanded that “strict liability [legal responsibility for the damage and loss caused by acts and omissions regardless of culpability] for defamation is unconstitutional in the United States; the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea [knowledge that his statements were false]”.
Once you step into the public sphere in a role of advocacy, you lose a significant portion of protection which the law affords. Writing for the majority opinion in the Gertz case, Justice Powell affirmed that “[public figures] have access to more ways of counteracting allegations about them than private figures do, and thus they [private figures] deserved a lower standard to prove libel.”
In general, US case law is intent on the principle that libel law is not to be used to suppress “unpopular opinions”, and public figures must go to extraordinary lengths to prevail in libel cases.
“Just deciding that it’s true falls under the “reckless disregard for the truth”
A core principle of leftists is that there is no absolute truth. That position is key to relativism and postmodernism and yet leftists often claim to be the arbitrators of absolute truth. At some point, deconstruction will be applied by leftists to their own ideology and it could be as ugly as every other time it has happened. The only question is whether the purges will take the Democrats further toward totalitarianism or closer to classical liberalism.
Right now, it looks like the totalitarians are winning but on a biological level, humans don’t like to be bossed around.
Who was it who coined the term “Little Eichmann’s”? I really find Jim and Andrew’s goosestepping around to be very offensive. They ought to go live in one of the few remaining totalitarian hellholes which ascribe to their philosophy and see how much they like it.
I really find Jim and Andrew’s goosestepping around to be very offensive.
So Bart’s the first to be crass enough to surrender to Godwin’s law.
I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust”, Godwin has written.
Your assault on freedom of speech is very offensive. You guys would be screaming bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot.
Umm, haven’t AGW alarmists like Mann been pulling a godwin for some time now? The use of the term denier is a deliberate tactic to equate sceptics of AGW with Nazis and genocide.
Maybe someone should sue…
That is part of what makes this suit and the support for it from the AGW alarmist community so mind boggling. The people who use the vilest insults to describe people they disagree with get upset when someone returns the favor. How would AGW alarmists react to commercials calling for their execution? Why are sceptics expected to put up with this crap?
The AGW alarmist community claims to hold the moral high ground and that their intentions are pure yet they lack even a basic moral compass.
Well said. No pressure? Blowing up bloody schoolchildren in that commercial?!!! What a bunch of effing totalitarian assholes.
“What a bunch of effing totalitarian assholes.”
As a group, ya but Andrew W is pretty cool. I always enjoy reading his comments.
Bart, as you can see, I’ve hacked Wodun’s ID.
Well, hacked or not, I respect his opinion, so maybe I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Who is covering Mann’s legal fees, is it the university? And if Rand is supposed to pay up if he loses, who pays Mann’s fees if he loses?
Who, indeed? Someone like Soros, I’d bet.
If not for Mann’s behavior as a serial litigant, I would’ve guessed that Penn officials put him up to it to defend their reputation from follow-on “Sandusky” type attacks on their ethics and credibility. They would have a better claim to defend regarding their reputation than Mann does, if not for knowingly letting a child molester run loose – which does tend to hurt one’s reputation.
By the way, there’s a very interesting post at Judith Curry’s blog by Dagfinn Reiersøl that’s long but well worth reading, regarding the big question of the IPCC’s attribution statements. The way they’ve framed the question in AR5 means that man’s contribution to global warming can vastly exceed 100%, and that the less global warming there is, the more of it that must be caused by man.
Who would ever criticize, let alone belittle any scientist or academic knowing that you could go 14 months in court without actually making any progress in clearing your name.
The case would have been thrown out, or never filed, if the statements had merely been critical or belittling. The case goes on because the statements go beyond mere criticism to accuse Mann of professional misconduct.
In another thread Wodun pointed to Courtney Love’s recent Twitter defamation trial; Love was sued by her ex-lawyer after tweeting that the attorney “was bought off.” Love won the case — the attorney was treated as a public figure, and the jury was persuaded by Love’s testimony that she believed the charge to be true when she made it, so the plaintiffs failed to show that Love had acted with malice.
But the case went to court, for a jury to decide, because the law says that if Love had been acting with malice — e.g. if she’d just made up the bribery allegation — the plaintiff was entitled to damages. You are free to tell the world that you think your ex-lawyer botched your case, but you aren’t allowed to smear her by declaring that she was bought off. And only a trial can answer the difference between a sincere allegation and one made out of malice.
Similarly, you are free to say that Mann is a terrible scientist who is completely wrong about everything, but you aren’t allowed to publicly say that he takes bribes, or embezzles funds, or fabricates data, just to give your criticism some extra oomph.
Rand may well win his case — actual malice is a steep burden. But by publicly accusing Mann of fraud, he gave Mann the right to put the case in front of a jury, with all the expenses that entails.
just to give your criticism some extra oomph
I guess when Mann takes to twitter and does the same thing the defendants have done here, he doesn’t need any more oomph. Or… Twitter?? Come on, no one takes that seriously. Oomph isn’t required. Or… Twitter has a secret oomph booster button, which comes with it’s own legal mechanism to render any broadcaster immune.
Or maybe the universe at large has properly concluded that Mann is a noise maker who isn’t worth the time it takes to consume anything he produces any longer. Regardless of how much oomph he adds to it. So he’s taken to suing others to get the attention he can’t get any other way.
Hope you’re content with that.
Sorry about the double post, but this got misplaced:
“Rand may well win his case — actual malice is a steep burden. But by publicly accusing Mann of fraud, he gave Mann the right to put the case in front of a jury, with all the expenses that entails.”
So, basically you are saying that Mann is engaging in “lawfare”. With little to no hope of winning the case, his only purpose can be to harass and stifle further criticism.
I don’t know what Mann’s odds of proving malice are, but he can certainly hope to stifle further claims that he’s committed fraud.
Lol, you do admit the suit is a weapon of intimidation and not about the purity of Mann’s work. This isn’t about preventing future claims of fraud but attacking critics and causing them harm.
Mann suffered no harm from what Rand wrote, other than some bruised feelings but Rand and the other defendants are suffering real harm through Mann’s lawfare.
Considering Mann constantly says things worse than what Rand did, the suit is the height of hypocrisy
If Mann made false defamatory statements of fact that are “worse” than saying someone committed scientific fraud, he’s open to being sued himself. Goose, gander.
Except normal people have better things to do with their time and money than going around suing people.
” Goose, gander”
You never treat geese and ganders the same way. I guarantee that if someone sued Mann for his statements you would cry free speech.
Or any others.
Tell me, Jim… just out of curiosity. Do you think President Bush misled the public about the basis for removing Saddam Hussein from power? Do you think you, or any of your sympathetic fellows, should be legally prohibited from claiming that he did?
Yes, I think the Bush administration misled the public about the basis for removing Hussein from power. No, I don’t think any court would find me liable for damages for saying so, since the statement in question is a statement of opinion.
If, on the other hand, I published an article stating that Bush had ordered the 9/11 attacks, or embezzled from the government, or robbed a liquor store, I would be opening myself up to being sued, since those are defamatory statements of fact.
“…since those are defamatory statements of fact.”
Hundreds of people have made those silly allegations. They are not “defamatory statements of fact.” They are statements of lunatics. There is no injury from such sources, hence no defamation.
“No, I don’t think any court would find me liable for damages for saying so, since the statement in question is a statement of opinion.”
Nobody asked you that question. Alleging that the Bush administration willfully misled the public is a very serious charge. It does not matter if, as you say, no court would find you liable for damages. No court is likely to find in favor of Mann in this case, either, as you, yourself, have stated.
You are evading the question: Do you think you should face the threat of being sued for claiming Bush misled us into war? Do you think you should have to carefully weigh your words and figuratively look over your shoulder whenever you criticize those who make critical decisions affecting your life?
If you answer “no”, then you must be consistent and answer “no” to the question of whether others should have their thoughts policed regarding a public figure like Mann. Anything less is rank hypocrisy.
So, it seems that you think Mann is going to court out of spite and has little chance of winning. Sure he has every right to bring suit but let’s be clear why he is doing it, lawfare to silience critics. The Love case shows how unstable Mann’s suit is and also emphasizes how the process is part of the harassment. IIRC, Love was sued in 2009. Should Mann’s suit last as long, then he will have achieved his goal, win or lose, to cause harm to his critics. Mann doesn’t need to win the case to get what he wants.
Lawfare is a common tactic of militant environmentalists.
Also, you are free to say Mann fabricated data or results if you believe it to be true. You are also allowed to say Penn State’s investigation was a sham if you believe it to be true. This is what the Love case ephasized.
It is crazy how fast you sacrifice a core ideal of your professed political ideology rather than hold your friends to the same standard you hold everyone else.
The freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is not among my (or anyones?) core ideals. I wouldn’t defend anyone’s right to do that.
The Love case took years of pre-trial preparation and an 8 day trial to settle because Love made a defamatory claim that she had no particularly good reason to believe. She got off by convincing the jury that her confusion and paranoia were such that she believed it anyway. She’s hardly a profile in First Amendment courage.
you are free to say Mann fabricated data or results if you believe it to be true
You have to have some reason to believe it to be true — you can’t just like the idea of it being true. Just deciding that it’s true falls under the “reckless disregard for the truth” clause.
There is a mountain of reasons to believe the claim to be true. The more one digs into Mann’s work, his behavior, his e-mails in Climategate #1 and #2, the more likely one is to believe that he committed fraud, or at least gross scientific misconduct. The evidence was so damning that Penn State was compelled to conduct a formal investigation, but then conveniently three out three of the four charges and didn’t bother interviewing any of Mann’s detractors, convincing many observers, even journalists at The Atlantic that the investigation was a whitewash.
But apparently nobody is allowed to point that out because, um, SQUIRREL!
Judith Curry has had a lot of people urging her to file a similar suit against Michael Mann because she has a much stronger case that Mann has against anyone, but she says it’s not worth the bother. She also worries that his suit will forever harm the open practice of science.
The more one digs into Mann’s work, his behavior, his e-mails in Climategate #1 and #2, the more likely one is to believe that he committed fraud
That’s a very odd thing to say. Mann either committed fraud, or he didn’t. “Digging into” his emails might lower your opinion of him, but it either proves that he committed fraud, or it doesn’t. Multiple bodies have looked at those emails without finding a smoking gun.
Not liking the guy, and thinking of him as the type of person who would do terrible things, is not the same thing as knowing that he is guilty of this specific misconduct.
The evidence was so damning
The evidence obviously wasn’t damning, as Mann remains un-damned. No body with any authority has formerly charged him with misconduct.
even journalists at The Atlantic
If you are referring to that Crook piece, he complains that the investigations were inadequate because they only cleared Mann et al of scientific fraud.
The “multiple bodies” had a vested interest in protecting their own. The UK inquiry didn’t even look at Mann, by the way, because he wasn’t a UK citizen. Climatology has become the flagship program of science, and as such many scientists and concerned politicians are highly reluctant to criticize any part of it, lest they be denounced by “the team” and the team’s legions of environmental activists. In the UK inquiry, they didn’t even bother to question the team’s key detractors who were prominently discussed in the e-mails.
This is why the term “whitewash” has been bandied about for years regarding these investigations.
That’s a very odd thing to say. Mann either committed fraud, or he didn’t.
I too can just tell when someone is committing fraud. It’s a common superpower among the internet ranter set. There’s no actual need to consider what the common mortal would call “evidence”.
“The freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is not among my (or anyones?) core ideals.”
The hell it isn’t! You just accused GW Bush of fraud against the American people upthread. How do you sleep at night?
A reasonable jury would find it reasonable that the Bush administration
lied about the causes and requirements for the Iraq war. Ranging
from the Downing street memos to the hundreds of lies and
misrepresentations.
So, the freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is, indeed, among your core ideals. Apparently, some people’s freedom’s are more equal than others.
How do you know what a reasonable jury would think? There was never a trial for them to make a judgement. That so many people disagree with your imagineary alternate universe is a pretty strong indicator that a reasonable jury wouldn’t necessarily agree with your opinion.
The case was never made that Bush lied as opposed to being wrong. And the hundreds of tons of yellow cake and other chemical weapons stockpiles that were removed from Iraq shows he was partly right.
Also, wasn’t Blair cleared of the very wrong doing you allege? Are you calling into question the validity of the investigation? Do you realize how that makes you look right now?
“The freedom to casually accuse people of committing fraud is not among my (or anyones?) core ideals”
Freedom of speech is no longer one of your core ideals? Just a couple posts up you defended the right to casually accuse Bush of committing fraud. Why is it that you always want the Democrats to operate under a different, and lower, set of standards than what Democrats hold others to?
“The Love case took years of pre-trial preparation and an 8 day trial to settle because Love made a defamatory claim that she had no particularly good reason to believe.”
No it didn’t take so long to work its way through the system because, “she had no particularly good reason to believe.” It took so long because that is how the legal system works and it is why Mann is using the legal system to bring frivolous lawsuit against his critics.
“You have to have some reason to believe it to be true ”
You mean like a shoddy investigation by a college that has demonstrated the capability to overlook the wrong doing of its staff when it comes to serious crimes like sexually assaulting a multitude of children? It is easy to come up with any number of reasons for why someone would disagree with Mann and/or the investigation into his actions. This is why the burden of proof is so high.
” Just deciding that it’s true falls under the “reckless disregard for the truth” clause.”
Lol, no.
if Mann had a frivolous case, the judge would have dismissed it in pre-trial.
2 Superior court judges have upheld the case as meeting the minimums to go to trial.
Right. And, if “Separate but Equal” were inherently unfair, the judges in Plessy v. Ferguson wouldn’t have upheld it.
You are correct in the sense that frivilous has a meaning in legalese but in the broader context of the word, a suit can be considered frivilous and still go to trial. Even in the legal arena, though, the definition of frivilous isn’t a constant.
Also, that a judge allows a case to go forward says nothing about its merit or chance of winning.
This caught my attention:
If the case proceeds, life will merely get worse, as the defendants could be subject to discovery, or in other words a full cavity search of every piece of communication generated over a court-mandated period of time.
When the suit was filed the defendants were happily anticipating subjecting the plaintiffs to the discovery process. Weingarten seems to think the reverse will be the case.
Can someone with pretensions to legal expertise sort this out for us?
“Can someone with pretensions to legal expertise sort this out for us?”
No need. Just basic psychology. This is the phase known as “posturing” or “trash talking”. Its purpose is to “psych” the other side out, hoping to bring them to the bargaining table on favorable terms.
Nothing anyone claims or says at this point should be taken at face value.
I am no lawyer but I assume discovery cuts both ways. I am not sure what Mann thinks he will learn. The allegation that AGW critics are funded by oil companies is a myth. They wont find any coordination between Shell and Rand.
I do wonder, if Rand’s defense will find some motivation for why the suit was filled that shows the intent was harassment.
I’d assume discovery would be fairly broad ranging.
Rand could most likely get access to Mann’s Research notebooks, datasets and
software methodology.
Mann will likely be able to get Rand’s emails discussing terms and postures at CEI and
wether he had copies of various investigations of Mann and Mann’s papers, or any other
papers on climate science.
Mann will likely be able to get Rand’s emails discussing terms and postures at CEI
No he wouldn’t, because they are non-existent.
and wether he had copies of various investigations of Mann and Mann’s papers, or any other
papers on climate science.
Which I also don’t have. Why would I, when they’re available on line?
I know it’s a futile request, but stop being an idiot.
I agree, the only thing his lawyers are likely to discover is that there is no there three. That isn’t going to help your case at all, either.
“Rand may well win his case — actual malice is a steep burden. But by publicly accusing Mann of fraud, he gave Mann the right to put the case in front of a jury, with all the expenses that entails.”
So, basically you are saying that Mann is engaging in “lawfare”. With little to no hope of winning the case, his only purpose can be to harass and stifle further criticism.
You said it twice but say it a million times and it wouldn’t sink in for Jim. It is always interesting to see Jim’s mask slip especially when he isn’t self aware enough to notice.
I didn’t bother reading passed this bit:
Got that? Make fun of a climate scientist and be prepared to lawyer up.
“Make fun of”?? Weingarten’s own words prove he’s full of crap, God knows making fun of climate scientists is literally a full time commitment for a lot of people.
And that’s probably your key problem. You never read past some certain bit, and its the stuff past those bits that conveys important information. In contrast, the skeptics read all the other side’s arguments, instead of fanning themselves like a horrified Victorian prude who won’t listen to a single word that might call into question their quite perfect view of the world.
Just for you George I read the rest of it, this bit wasn’t too encouraging:
All of this is a way of saying that if you write a blog post calling a scientist, let alone a climate scientist a fraud, you better retract that statement or your life will become a living hell.
So the 1st amendment means it’s OK to publicly claim a lawyer acts illegally in his professional capacity? It’s OK to publicly accuse a doctor of unethical behavior? It’s OK to publicly accuse a business proprietor of lying to his customers and selling goods illegally? None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?
I don’t claim to know, with any certainty, how the law is enforced in such cases in the US, so these questions aren’t rhetorical.
I found this bit interesting: **[Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer. Any technical aspects of the case are simplified, and based purely on my reading of the documents of the case at hand.]
Well that explains a lot.
Steyn’s comment: “were Dr. Mann to prevail, it would nevertheless be the case that his peculiarly thin skin and insecurities would enjoy greater protection under U.S. law than they do in Britain, Canada, Australia, and other jurisdictions. It would thus be a major setback for the First Amendment.”
Is just BS, several lawyers have made the point, when discussing this case, that without the 1st Amendment, and the way it is interpreted these days, defendants in defamation cases outside the US don’t have the protection that they have in the US.
Defamation cases in which acts of professional misconduct are alleged are just not covered by freedom of speech legislation in other jurisdictions.
George, your claim that “skeptics read all the other side’s arguments” is also BS, very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change. Several times I discussion with me “skeptics” have made it clear they avoid reading material they know they’re going to disagree with.
very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change
Whatever the hell that means.
And yet public opinion has clearly shifted away from you and your fellow evangelists’ positions. Why is that Andrew? Because the mainstream media has been pounding away at you and supporting the skeptics?
That’s onion-caliber hilarious.
Because National Review, CEI and other right-leaning media have such a large audience that it’s been impossible to get your message out?
Again, onion-caliber hilarious.
Because of… Big Oil Money©? Because policy makers and governments are inclined to be sympathetic with skeptics?
Again, onion-caliber hilarious.
Why do you think the tide has turned Andrew? Why do you think the average gal on the street is at this point in time much more likely to roll her eyes and state “I’m really just skeptical that we need to worry about CO2”?
“very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change.”
Should have been: “very few, other than a few scientists, would bother to read a paper (or understand it) supporting the IPCC position on climate change.”
Why do you think the tide has turned Andrew?
Several reasons:
1.The immediacy of the threat CAGW was supposed to pose was overplayed, people lose interest in a threat that’s coming slower than a steamroller.
2. The “pause”
3. The economic downturn, people don’t have money to spend on the distant maybes in life.
I agree with all 3 of your reasons.
“So the 1st amendment means it’s OK to publicly claim a lawyer acts illegally in his professional capacity? It’s OK to publicly accuse a doctor of unethical behavior? It’s OK to publicly accuse a business proprietor of lying to his customers and selling goods illegally”
Yes, if you believe your statements to be true and they are about public people. You seem to be arguing that any criticism is illegal under free speech. That isn’t how America operates and shouldn’t be how free speech works in general.
Mann should just put his big girl panties on and let his work speak for itself rather than using lawfare to silence his critics. Mann regularly defames people by equating them with holocaust deniers but while I think his characterization of people is disgusting and reprehensible I would never encourage people suing him for being a DB.
“None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?”
Oh, people can sue for anything. That doesn’t mean they will win or that their position has merit just because they can sue.
“very few, other than a few scientists, would both to read a paper (or understand) supporting the IPCC position on climate change.”
You know the same is true for AGW alarmists. Gore, Obama, and most public advocates of AGW have never read any papers. What is worse, that laymen who are skeptical of AGW don’t read all the reports or that people in power who write and implement regulations and those who use militant activism to achieve their political goals don’t read any scientific reports?
To me, it is much scarier that the people who are advocating for drastic change in political, economic, moral, and scientific systems haven’t done their due diligence.
You seem to be arguing that any criticism is illegal under free speech.
“None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?”
OK, I should have added “and even when those making the allegations know them to be untrue”
Wow, I’ve been spitting out even more typos than usual 🙁
“when those making the allegations know them to be untrue”
That is pretty hard to prove even if you cede the point that someone thought they were making an untrue statement. And if that point isn’t ceded, it is even harder. Do you think that Rand believes the hockey stick is valid and that Penn State’s investigation was above board?
You could say he is wrong but you couldn’t say that isn’t what he believes.
Think of it this way, being wrong on something doesn’t mean you lied. Do we say students lied on test questions they got wrong? The flip side is that Rand is right about the flaws of Mann’s work and the investigation into them. That doesn’t mean your support of Mann or the investigations are lies, right? Unlike Jim, I get the feeling you are arguing beliefs out of principles that you actually hold.
Well, I think we’ve well established that Rand and Steyn believed it to be true, and with good reason.
The purpose of libel laws isn’t to suppress speech and debate, it’s to keep people from using slander when they don’t have anything juicy enough for blackmail and can’t manage to frame their victim for some heinous crime. That’s the “malice” part that’s required, marking what was said not as the usual gossip or disgust with someone (such as how Democrats always accuse Republicans of being in bed with big oil), but intentionally fabricating a story in hopes of injuring someone, such as making up details about a sex and bribery scandal out of thin air and trying to pass it off as investigative journalism.
In Mann’s case, he was already the subject of numerous investigations for all sorts of misconduct. It’s not as if Rand made up some wholly new charge and tried to pass off the fiction as something he’d diligently uncovered (such as alleging that Mann was having an affair with a co-ed or something).
Second, Mann is a very public figure, probably more well known to adults than Katy Perry or Lady what’s-her-face. Can such people sue anyone who writes a review calling them a talentless auto-tuned hack whose last album sucks when it is obvious that the reviewers strongly-held opinion is just that?
Yet future generations aren’t going to face poverty because everyone was afraid to express what they thought of Lada something’s last album. They might face poverty if they don’t stand up to scientifically incompetent bullies who are serial litigants and want to stifle Third World and First World economic growth to satisfy their own vanity.
“So the 1st amendment means it’s OK to publicly claim a lawyer acts illegally in his professional capacity? It’s OK to publicly accuse a doctor of unethical behavior? It’s OK to publicly accuse a business proprietor of lying to his customers and selling goods illegally? None of these people are justified in suing those making such allegations, no matter how untrue the allegations are?”
These are all private individuals. In the US, there is an important distinction made between private and public personalities.
There is a bit of a gray area between public officials and public figures. In Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, the SCOTUS held that “while news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials under the Supreme Court’s New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision (1964), they may still be liable to public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked.”.
However, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Court demanded that “strict liability [legal responsibility for the damage and loss caused by acts and omissions regardless of culpability] for defamation is unconstitutional in the United States; the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea [knowledge that his statements were false]”.
Once you step into the public sphere in a role of advocacy, you lose a significant portion of protection which the law affords. Writing for the majority opinion in the Gertz case, Justice Powell affirmed that “[public figures] have access to more ways of counteracting allegations about them than private figures do, and thus they [private figures] deserved a lower standard to prove libel.”
In general, US case law is intent on the principle that libel law is not to be used to suppress “unpopular opinions”, and public figures must go to extraordinary lengths to prevail in libel cases.
“Just deciding that it’s true falls under the “reckless disregard for the truth”
A core principle of leftists is that there is no absolute truth. That position is key to relativism and postmodernism and yet leftists often claim to be the arbitrators of absolute truth. At some point, deconstruction will be applied by leftists to their own ideology and it could be as ugly as every other time it has happened. The only question is whether the purges will take the Democrats further toward totalitarianism or closer to classical liberalism.
Right now, it looks like the totalitarians are winning but on a biological level, humans don’t like to be bossed around.
Who was it who coined the term “Little Eichmann’s”? I really find Jim and Andrew’s goosestepping around to be very offensive. They ought to go live in one of the few remaining totalitarian hellholes which ascribe to their philosophy and see how much they like it.
I really find Jim and Andrew’s goosestepping around to be very offensive.
So Bart’s the first to be crass enough to surrender to Godwin’s law.
I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust”, Godwin has written.
Your assault on freedom of speech is very offensive. You guys would be screaming bloody murder if the shoe were on the other foot.
Umm, haven’t AGW alarmists like Mann been pulling a godwin for some time now? The use of the term denier is a deliberate tactic to equate sceptics of AGW with Nazis and genocide.
Maybe someone should sue…
That is part of what makes this suit and the support for it from the AGW alarmist community so mind boggling. The people who use the vilest insults to describe people they disagree with get upset when someone returns the favor. How would AGW alarmists react to commercials calling for their execution? Why are sceptics expected to put up with this crap?
The AGW alarmist community claims to hold the moral high ground and that their intentions are pure yet they lack even a basic moral compass.
Well said. No pressure? Blowing up bloody schoolchildren in that commercial?!!! What a bunch of effing totalitarian assholes.
“What a bunch of effing totalitarian assholes.”
As a group, ya but Andrew W is pretty cool. I always enjoy reading his comments.
Bart, as you can see, I’ve hacked Wodun’s ID.
Well, hacked or not, I respect his opinion, so maybe I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Who is covering Mann’s legal fees, is it the university? And if Rand is supposed to pay up if he loses, who pays Mann’s fees if he loses?
Who, indeed? Someone like Soros, I’d bet.
If not for Mann’s behavior as a serial litigant, I would’ve guessed that Penn officials put him up to it to defend their reputation from follow-on “Sandusky” type attacks on their ethics and credibility. They would have a better claim to defend regarding their reputation than Mann does, if not for knowingly letting a child molester run loose – which does tend to hurt one’s reputation.
By the way, there’s a very interesting post at Judith Curry’s blog by Dagfinn Reiersøl that’s long but well worth reading, regarding the big question of the IPCC’s attribution statements. The way they’ve framed the question in AR5 means that man’s contribution to global warming can vastly exceed 100%, and that the less global warming there is, the more of it that must be caused by man.