PDA

View Full Version : Climate Scientist, Heated Up Over Satirical Video, Threatens Lawsuit



FlaGator
04-27-2010, 01:51 PM
Suing is not the best option as the story points out.



The Penn State climate professor who has silently endured investigations, hostile questioning, legislative probes and attacks by colleagues has finally spoken out. He says he'll sue the makers of a satirical video that's a hit on You Tube.
Their response: Bring it on.

Michael Mann, one of the central figures in the recent climate-data scandal, is best known for his "hockey stick graph," which was the key visual aid in explaining how the world is warming at an alarming rate and in connecting the rise to the increase in use of carbon fuels in this century. E-mails stolen from a university in England were released online, revealing exchanges between climatologists and a reference to a "trick" that Mann had used to get the graph to portray what global warming scientists wanted to see.

The parody video, titled "Hide the Decline," had more than 500,000 viewers on YouTube and received national attention when Rush Limbaugh played it on his radio show. It features a cat with a guitar, a talking tree, and a dancing figure sporting the image of Professor Mann. It's the use of his image that Mann is complaining about, arguing that the video supports "efforts to sell various products and merchandise."
"The guy is crazy to threaten legal action," said Jeff Davis, the President of No Cap and Trade (http://www.nocapandtrade.com/), a large organization that includes the group Mann is threatening to sue, Minnesotans for Global Warming. "A lawsuit would give us full discovery -- and there's a lot to look at in his work."



Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk

wilbur
04-27-2010, 07:19 PM
E-mails stolen from a university in England were released online, revealing exchanges between climatologists and a reference to a "trick" that Mann had used to get the graph to portray what global warming scientists wanted to see.


And people still don't understand that the "nature trick" had absolutely nothing to do with a hockey stick reconstruction....

Whether you want to think it was nefarious or not, it simply wasnt about the the damn hockey stick graph.

Something tells me the canard will stick around for a while.


In a sort of related matter, one climate scientist is now suing a newspaper for libel - good luck to him, hopefully there is more to follow. It sure seems like Phil Jones would have a case against more than a few:

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Rights-Justice/2010/04/21/WeaverSues/

Constitutionally Speaking
04-27-2010, 07:37 PM
And people still don't understand that the "nature trick" had absolutely nothing to do with a hockey stick reconstruction....

Whether you want to think it was nefarious or not, it simply wasnt about the the damn hockey stick graph.

Something tells me the canard will stick around for a while.


In a sort of related matter, one climate scientist is now suing a newspaper for libel - good luck to him, hopefully there is more to follow. It sure seems like Phil Jones would have a case against more than a few:

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Rights-Justice/2010/04/21/WeaverSues/



I hope he does sue. That would open him up for discovery.

Sonnabend
04-28-2010, 04:51 AM
In a sort of related matter, one climate scientist is now suing a newspaper for libel - good luck to him, hopefully there is more to follow. It sure seems like Phil Jones would have a case against more than a few:It isn't libel if it's the TRUTH.

Mr Jones, did you lie and evade Freedom of Information requests? Did you write this email and tell others to delete data? Did you also write in an email to find ways to evade FOI requests?

"Yes"

Case closed.

Oh yeah I forgot...this is in CANADA .:rolleyes:

wilbur
04-28-2010, 12:25 PM
It isn't libel if it's the TRUTH.

Exactly! If its not true, it can be libel. Therefore, it seems a legit possibility that Jones' might have a case against quite a few reporters, just like Mann might have a case against this video maker - who is clearly spreading false information.



Mr Jones, did you lie and evade Freedom of Information requests? Did you write this email and tell others to delete data? Did you also write in an email to find ways to evade FOI requests?

"Yes"

Case closed.

Oh yeah I forgot...this is in CANADA .:rolleyes:

Libel isn't strictly about lying, its about a specific type of lie that causes personal harm. In any case, I have never defended their actions in regard to the FOI requests, even though I can sympathize with their plight (ie, denialist harassment).

Sonnabend
04-29-2010, 03:50 AM
Exactly! If its not true, it can be libel. Therefore, it seems a legit possibility that Jones' might have a case against quite a few reporters, just like Mann might have a case against this video maker - who is clearly spreading false information.

Jones has no case because his lies are already public domain. The emails he wrote are damning evidence against him.


Libel isn't strictly about lying, its about a specific type of lie that causes personal harm. In any case, I have never defended their actions in regard to the FOI requests, even though I can sympathize with their plight (ie, denialist harassment).

Doesnt justify lying or breaking the law. He lied, he broke the law, he deleted information to avoid FOI requests, he exhorted others to make sure that FOI requests were denied or ignored.

And then admitted that the raw data he used to make up these garbage models had been lost long beforehand.

We're supposed to just take his word for it?

No.

malloc
04-29-2010, 06:33 AM
In a sort of related matter, one climate scientist is now suing a newspaper for libel - good luck to him, hopefully there is more to follow. It sure seems like Phil Jones would have a case against more than a few:


In reality, it doesn't matter how many sue for any reason. Climate change, with bills like Cap & Trade in the balance, is no longer about defamation of character or libel, it's now in the arena of political discourse. It is now about 1st Amendment rights to free speech, specifically political satire which has been historically protected. Therein lies the danger of politicizing a scientific issue, the issue looses all protections in deference to the Bill of Rights. When a scientific issue becomes heavily politicized, the protections afforded to libel, slander, and privacy take a back seat to first amendment protections. Since supposed climate change "science" has been politicized on Capitol Hill, speaking out against a scientist is no longer under the purview of defamation, but is under the purview of free speech and freedom of the press.

Yeah, good luck suing, it won't work.

The scientist in question signed his name onto the report which was used to further a political agenda of bills. That action opened said scientist to 1st Amendment protected criticism. These plaintiff's won't win, and the only way they will avoid devastating, public discovery will be to run and hide behind Obama's apron strings. You can expect this to happen.