“Charlie,” Free Speech, And Climate Change

Thoughts from Judith Curry:

Anyone defending the satirists at Charlie should have a tough time defending Michael Mann in his legal war against the satirical writings of Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. It will be interesting to see if Charlie and the defense of satirists changes the dynamics of the Mann vs NRO/CEI/Steyn lawsuits.

For the record, I have never sued, or threatened, let alone committed any acts of violence against people who call me a “denier,” a term I find quite offensive (particularly when they can’t describe exactly what it is I “deny”). I have this crazy idea that the proper response to speech I don’t like is more speech.

[Afternoon update]

“Free speech is so last century. Today’s students want the right to be comfortable.” I like the phrase “Stepford students.”

17 thoughts on ““Charlie,” Free Speech, And Climate Change”

  1. Ahhh, so when you said Mann had molested his data, and when Steyn said Mann had committed scientific fraud, neither of you were serious, you were both just joking!

    Yep, got that.

    And on what it is you’re accused of denying, I think it’s supposed to be catastrophic AGW, (something I admit I’m still sitting on the fence over).

    1. Your point is that freedom of speech is only in the _exact same circumstances_ as Charlie? Does his name have to begin with a C?

      1. No my point is that Curry describes the writings that Mann is suing Steyn and Simberg over as satirical, what Rand and Steyn said they said in all genuiness ans as something they believed to be fair and true.
        (If you think about it, Curry was inadvertently insulting Steyn and Simberg, would you want something you said in all seriousness labeled “satirical”?)

        1. I’m not really in a position to comment, because lawyers, but I think that Judith was making a broader point about general freedom of speech.

          But FWIW, I wrote nothing that I believed not to be true.

        2. Andrew, can your childish mind not understand that satire and truth are not mutually exclusive? Seriously, get over yourself – “global warming” is not the hill to die on.

          1. I wonder if Andrew is confusing satire for irony, the latter being a tool of the former. Irony is about a contradiction, but even in that, the contradiction may not be the exact point of the target of the satire. Further satire is not entirely dependent on irony. In fact, I suspect that lack of dependence is why most people misuse the word irony.

          2. Rand and Steyn weren’t being satirical, so Curry’s speculation of “Charlie and the defense of satirists changing the dynamics of the Mann vs NRO/CEI/Steyn lawsuits.” is nonsense.

            As for ” “global warming” is not the hill to die on.”
            I have a lot less to say on it these days than a heck of a lot of other people, and obviously to most, this discussion isn’t even about global warming, it’s about whether some sort of legal or moral link can reasonably be made between Charlie and Mann/Steyn/Simberg, and man, that link is a very long bow.

          3. Leland, which the comment comparing Mann to Jerry whats-his-name, was satirical, I don’t see the “molesting data” bit as such, which is the bit that the case has become focused on, as for Steyn, I don’t see any satire in his contested comments, (though he uses satire a lot) if satire applies in these instances it would be about exaggeration, which Rand and Steyn don’t, at this stage, seem to be claiming.

          4. I don’t see any satire in his contested comments

            I’ve seen your analytical ability over the last few days. I’m not worried for Rand.

    2. The “Amazing” Dr.Mann doesn’t even have a scientific hypothesis ( Climate Sensitivity is no more falsifiable than Intelligent Design).

  2. Stepford students, thinking they’re educated, are an existential threat to our future just like Obama and his cronies are today. Only reality is going to change them and that reality is going to take us all down the drain with them.

  3. “Intelligent Design” does make predictions, and hence in principle is falsifiable. Remember, ID holds, in general, that (perhaps all species, but certainly) the major divisions of life were “designed” and created de novo rather than having diverged at some specific point from a common ancestor. More particularly, for instance, during the early 1990’s ID guru Michael Behe, observing the considerable physiological distinction between the highly-aquatic whales and other mostly land-walking “mammals”, made the prediction that this fact indicates that “Intelligent Design” was here afoot, so to speak, and that cetaceans would in fact ultimately be found to be an independent “creation” or “design.” What indeed happened? In a scientific irony, almost simultaneous with Bene’s making this prediction, investigators in 1993 discovered the remains of an early cetacean, now known as Ambulocetus, which obviously had legs and could walk on land. Prediction: fail.

Comments are closed.