AGW may be going to Court

[jimcripwell]

Prof. Weaver is suing the National Post here is Canada.

See

www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/21/bc-andrew-weaver-national-post-lawsuit.html

It could be interesting if this actually goes to court.

[hunter]

Apr 22, 2010 16:14:35 GMT jimcripwell said:

Prof. Weaver is suing the National Post here is Canada.

See

www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/04/21/bc-andrew-weaver-national-post-lawsuit.html

It could be interesting if this actually goes to court.

There is a saying in America about it being better to be silent and have people wonder if you are a fool than it is to speak up and remove all doubt.
Weaver is speaking loud and removing all doubt.

[steve]

The National Post has been speaking out loud for years, and the fact that they are fools doesn't seem to have worried them.

[socold]

Weaver is not only suing the National Post, but also the authors of the articles and about a dozen commenter's (as yet unidentified) who accused him of fraud in the comments section ofthe article on the nationalpost website.
The "statement of claim" is here: www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Weaver%20vs%20Corcoran.pdf

It also mentions carbon-copies of the articles being posted up on sites including cliamteaudit and wattsupwiththat and is demanding nationalpost get the copies removed off those websites as well as removing the ones on the national post's websites.

Too funny.

[hunter]

Memo to Prof. Weaver:
Lots of luck.

It is interesting that Mann, an author of a thoroughly debunked study, and Weaver, promoter of climate hysteria, both are schlepping their way to court at the same time pretending they are above criticism.
But the skeptics are the ones who are allegedly taking marching orders from some big conspiracy.
Mann's legal demand- where he asserts copyright infringement over something he does not have the copyright to, and claims it is illegal to make a parody of him, is particularly transparent.
Weaver I have followed less, but I will bet that his demands have about the same credibility.
But these actions are not designed to actually gain justice. The effort here, like the British whitewashes, is to keep the true believers on board and to hopefully intimidate skeptics into silence.
The track record of these sorts of efforts historically have been generally poor.
We once had a judge who was a slumlord in our part of town. He would let trash and raw garbage pile up in front of his property for weeks at a time. Eventually neighbors got tired of his irresponsible behavior and called the city for enforcement. His response was to blame the neighbors and threaten to sue those complaining. When he was approached about cleaning up his mess, his response was that he would only if it was guaranteed to him that he would never receive any complaints again, and that if he was bothered with these sorts of complaints again, he would sue. After all, he was, as he liked to point out, a judge. Needless to say he did in fact intimidate a few people, but he set others off to give him a lot more trouble. He ended up on with the City doing a thorough audit, giving him dozens of citations, and the newspaper enjoyed sharing his arrogance with the entire city.
Needless to say it did not work
Weaver and Mann, and I am sure many other AGW promoters will be going to court soon in their latest disgusting attempt to pretend the science is settled. I think it will work even worse for them than it did our local schmuck judge.
I look forward to it.

[jtom]

Disclaimer: The following comments and analysis represents personal opinion only. There is no attempt or desire to defame or libel any person or persons. No maliciousness is intended. ;D

Just glanced at the claims in the lawsuit and a couple of things popped out (besides the many, many, “you’ve got to be kidding me,” things in it).

Odd, I was going to copy the claims verbatim, but I can’t get the pdf doc to come up again. If someone has an active link for it, could you please post it? Thanks.

Basically, one claim is that the hockey stick graph has not been debunked.
From dictionary.com:

DEBUNK: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.

Considering that even Mann has expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the graph wrt the MWP, not to mention the numerous studies showing the existence of the MWP, does he really want to argue in court that the hockey stick representation has not been shown even to be exaggerated? Does he really want a judge and jury to rule that there is substantial reason to believe that the graph is false or exaggerated (no motive ascribed to the authors, just the accuracy of the graph, itself)?

Another claim is downright ironic (and humorous). There was an objection to a statement that, global warming “alarmist” engage in this and that, without a direct reference to Weaver (at least in that specific sentence). The response was that Weaver does not engage in this and that.

Well, does Weaver identify himself as an alarmist, or feels that others would think of him when reading the word 'alarmist'?

Again, from dictionary.com:

ALARMIST: a person who tends to raise alarms, esp. without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.

If Weaver identifies with that word, then I would think that that undermines most of his other complaints!

Does anyone know if Canada follows more closely the US legal position that the truth is absolute defense, or Great Britain’s position that it is wrong to defame someone even if it’s true?

[hunter]

Apr 23, 2010 17:13:20 GMT jtom said:

Disclaimer: The following comments and analysis represents personal opinion only. There is no attempt or desire to defame or libel any person or persons. No maliciousness is intended. ;D

Just glanced at the claims in the lawsuit and a couple of things popped out (besides the many, many, “you’ve got to be kidding me,” things in it).

Odd, I was going to copy the claims verbatim, but I can’t get the pdf doc to come up again. If someone has an active link for it, could you please post it? Thanks.

Basically, one claim is that the hockey stick graph has not been debunked.
From dictionary.com:

DEBUNK: to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.

Considering that even Mann has expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the graph wrt the MWP, not to mention the numerous studies showing the existence of the MWP, does he really want to argue in court that the hockey stick representation has not been shown even to be exaggerated? Does he really want a judge and jury to rule that there is substantial reason to believe that the graph is false or exaggerated (no motive ascribed to the authors, just the accuracy of the graph, itself)?

Another claim is downright ironic (and humorous). There was an objection to a statement that, global warming “alarmist” engage in this and that, without a direct reference to Weaver (at least in that specific sentence). The response was that Weaver does not engage in this and that.

Well, does Weaver identify himself as an alarmist, or feels that others would think of him when reading the word 'alarmist'?

Again, from dictionary.com:

ALARMIST: a person who tends to raise alarms, esp. without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities.

If Weaver identifies with that word, then I would think that that undermines most of his other complaints!

Does anyone know if Canada follows more closely the US legal position that the truth is absolute defense, or Great Britain’s position that it is wrong to defame someone even if it’s true?

When the AGW promoters say 'the science is settled', they mean that if you disagree they will declare you in violation of some judicial order and subject to Court sanctions or worse.
After decades of putting up with slimeball AGW tactics like suppressing peer review, hiding the decline, doctoring numbers, and doing it all at tax payer vast expense, these rats are now going to sue their way to victory?
Do not bet on it.

[socold]

The claims that suing is wrong won't wash. Skeptics were all for it before they were against it.

Weather Channel Founder and Over 30,000 Scientists Sue Al Gore For Fraud

This is about scientists defending themselves from journalists who make up false allegations to character attack them and whip up a public frenzy from the gallery of ignorant sorts - the sorts that send scientists death threats.

I don't know whether it will happen but I hope some of the commenters on the National Post website will also be exposed. I also hope that blogs and sites that published copies of the hit pieces of Weaver will be forced to take them down.

And at the end of the day there will be a court determining things here. If the makers of the accusations can back their accusations they have nothing to worry about do they? In my opinion I think the National Post has something to worry about. Wouldn't be the first time they've been successfully sued.

[icefisher]

Guess the science grants must not be rolling in.

Do you think maybe he is now a fundraiser for a legal defense fund?

Since the blogosphere has not been kind to global warming perhaps its an attempt to nuke it on the way out.

One could only imagine how many people have a case, if this case establishes a precedence, for being libeled with the brand of denialist or flat earther. The court system would either have to resort to "class action approaches" or face gridlock for decades.