Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 Climate Scientist, Heated Up Over Satirical Video, Threatens Lawsuit 
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,319
    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, 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

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    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/Righ...21/WeaverSues/
    Last edited by wilbur; 04-27-2010 at 07:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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/Righ...21/WeaverSues/


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

  4. #4  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    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 .
    Last edited by Sonnabend; 04-28-2010 at 04:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonnabend View Post
    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 .
    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).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Sonnabend
    Guest
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member malloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ
    Posts
    2,147
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    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.
    Last edited by malloc; 04-29-2010 at 07:25 AM.
    "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
    —Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •