On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:04:20 PM UTC+1, 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.

Stop blowing smoke, Jay. Your link leads not to a case of Mann v Ball, as you promised us, but of Weaver v Ball. You hit Google, read the first par of a random link, and tried to impose the misinformation you got there on Tom with a sneer, starting "WTF?" When this was pointed out to you, you repeated the offence, immediately above. We could equally ask you, WTF, Jay?

All these claims against climate deniers are dismissed for the same reason -- they're too stupid to take seriously.

Oh yes? Show us another one. You should also ask for your law-school tuition back, pal. That Mann v National Review and Mark Steyn case, far from being "stupid", will end up in the Supreme Court because Mann is using the courts to chill free speech, and he's picked on a hard case in Stein, who was responsible for the horrid speech-suppression Section 13 being retracted in Canada after no fewer than three "hate-speech tribunals" were terminally burnt trying to prosecute him. Steyn, no slouch and no stranger to attempted intimidation by charges of committing libel on other scumbags beside Mann, has spent the time caused by delays in the DC courts to write a book in which a 100 or so of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world speak about Mann: "A Disgrace To The Profession" The World's Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science Volume I. Get it from http://www.steynstore.com/product133.html or look up the Amazon link for yourself. Definitely a good read; I can't wait for the second volume. It's a pity that Mann's attorneys are smarter and more cautious than he is, because the book is a libel-trap (or troll, as Rideabot would have it): as soon as Mann sues, Steyn calls all these eminent scientists as witnesses, and behind the protection of the court they will absolutely destroy the pompous little man's claims.

Show me one where they get to the merits of the science.

See above. It also appears that Mann is just smart enough not to sue the two Canadians who did the statistics that exposed him as a fraud, McIntyre and McKitrick, whose work comes with the stamp of approval of the NAS and the world's leading statisticians in sworn testimony before the United States Senate.

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

If you have a point of hard information to make about the global warming delusion, lay it on the table, sport. Whining about "lunatic ranting" will get you nowhere; we've heard it all before and it didn't impress us the umpteen times we heard it before. It's just more sour smoke from people who don't have a foot to stand on.

-- Jay Beattie.

Andre Jute
Just to be clear, while the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age stand, the can be no proof of manmade global warming, which is why the global warming faithful sneer and jeer rather than making arguments with hard facts.