On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:04:20 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 9:49:23 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
Another sample of the way the Global Warming Faithful argue by sneering and jeering and lying rather than facts:

Jay Beattie claims:
WTF? Sure he could sue in the USA assuming a US court had jurisdiction over the defendant. There is no Constitutional protection for defamation, although the elements and burdens are different when the plaintiff is a public figure.

The problem is that calling someone a fraud, depending on context, is not defamation. It is non-actionable opinion, or the claim fails because plaintiff has not suffered special harm

Actually, dear Jay, Mann did sue in the US, and for the newly-minted crime of "libelling a Nobel Prize winner"; he was forced to amend his claim after the Nobel Prize Committee pointed out that he isn't a Nobel Prize winner, just another exploded lie by Michael Mann. The Defendants are National Review and Mark Stein. A whole bunch of leftwing media have filed amicus briefs with the court on the side of the defendants; none on the side of Mann.. The case is currently stalled in the DC courts as an anti-SLAPP action, and has been there for half a dozen years or so, which is first of all an ironic reflection on the appalling delays in the US justice system -- SLAPP is, for those who don't know, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, and an anti-SLAPP action seeks to dismiss a frivolous suit out of hand, to save court and defendant time... Perhaps that accounts for you, dear Jay, not knowing that Mann has in fact brought a defamation action in the US (in fact, he's rather addicted to suing).

We now come to an outright lie. Check it out. Tom Kunich says:
Dr. Michael Mann made the mistake of suing an opposing scientist (Dr. Tim Ball) in Canada for Character Assassination because he said that Dr. Mann was a fraud.

Jay replies:
The Canadian suit failed because the comments by Mr. Ball were so lunatic that nobody could take them seriously. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018...s-to-be-libel/ Mann's serious failing was suing on such a dopey claim. The court did not weigh-in on the existence of global warming.

This is an outright lie. The report cited and the courtroom outcome reported is actually about the claim of a politician called Weaver that Dr Ball libelled him. It has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Mann's case against Dr Ball.

Andre Jute
****ed off by a transparent attempt to pull wool over our eyes


Hardly. https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/1...take-seriously The prior link talked about the US claim in the last paragraph. This is the Canadian suit. All these claims against climate deniers are dismissed for the same reason -- they're too stupid to take seriously. Show me one where they get to the merits of the science.

You generally can't defame someone with lunatic ranting, which is a good thing for this NG.

-- Jay Beattie.

I can tell you that the claim was not creditable because in that claim Dr. Ball stated that the temperature data had been counterfeited and that he required Dr. Mann's temperature data to so prove it.

Dr. Mann refused to turn these records over for the reason I stated - that those temperature records were missing two of the most dramatic temperature events since the time of Christ and they were plainly NOT in Dr. Mann's chart of the "hickey stick".

So I'm not sure what you think that you are proving by quoting the finding and not the reasoning for that finding but what you quote and the reality are quite different.