Where to begin? It doesn’t matter if Steyn has “no scientific credentials;” he’s perfectly capable of both spotting fraud when he sees it, and calling out a fraudulent huckster if he deems it necessary. And while it’s true that science, idealized, is “a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion,” this has no bearing on whether or not Michael Mann committed fraud. We’re not debating whether or not science is a fact-based enterprise; we’re debating whether or not Mann is a fraudulent scientist. Defining science simply has nothing to do with the debate at hand; it’s a definitional reductio combined with an argumentative non sequitur.
But that doesn’t really matter with these people. If they get backed into a difficult corner, they just repeat, by rote, the textbook definition of science; for some reason, this is supposed to absolve their pet favorite scientists of any wrongdoing, even if the scientists’ professional credibility is seriously in question. It just doesn’t make any sense to use such a rhetorical device in such a way, and it makes people look like idiots when they use it: “Hey, that scientist is correct; after all, science is fact-based.”
As I said, this is mostly a left-liberal phenomenon; progressives just love the empty-headed campaign to endlessly repeat “science” until their adversaries give up.
It is quite annoying, at the very least.
I think I’ll trot out my favorite Dilbert cartoon again. It involves a confrontation between Dilbert and “Dan, the Illogical Scientist”.
Dan: That design will never work. I should know, because I’m a scientist, and scientists have done many wonderful things.
Dilbert: But, those were other scientists. Not you.
Dan: Apparently, you don’t understand science.
It will be interesting if this guy ends up as a witness for the plaintiff or the defendant.
He claims he knows the science and he also says “Mark Steyn called Mann ‘Fraudulent'”.
It would be interesting if Steyn uses him as a defense witness.
Lots of stupid things seem to be “interesting” to you.
@DN Guy
Define “science”.
That was so mean. You’ll break the imbecile’s brain.
It was already broken.
e’s perfectly capable of both spotting fraud when he sees it How? Did Steyn do his own calculations on the data? (and yes, the raw data is available.)
Fraud is a technical term, meaning “intent to deceive.” If I were, for example, to accuse an accountant of fraud, I would have to show that he was putting money somewhere he shouldn’t. To do that, I would have to actually look at financial records and (at least) show that money wasn’t going where it should go.
Did Steyn (or you) actually look at the raw data? Can you show me how that raw data was falsely manipulated?
I didn’t accuse Mann of fraud.
Unfortunately at least two judges think you did.
I thought Mann was going to extremes trying to prevent his methodology from being subjected to the discovery process.
Mann doesn’t have to prove anything. The burden here is on those accusing him of being a “fraudulent huckster.”
Didn’t Mann file the libel suit? In that regard, isn’t it Mann’s burden to prove that the things said were patently false, that there was actual injury, and either prove that he’s not a public figure, or prove that the statement was said with “actual malice”?
The easiest way to prove a fraud accusation is false is to provide the evidence showing that one isn’t a fraud vis a vis showing one’s methodology wasn’t patently flawed and fraudulent.
“Didn’t Mann file the libel suit?”
Chris has been confused like this throughout the whole process.
You think an author would be more supportive of a person’s right to free speech.
That’s not the burden, sorry.
Chris, you’ve uttered some doozies, but this one takes the cake. Mann is the plaintiff. If he fails to prove anything, he loses the case.
Mann is filing a defamation action. He’s shown enough to pass a district trial
level SLAPP hearing twice, and I suspect he will prevail at the Appellate court level.
Now the harder part will be the jury trial. Proving that reckless disregard is always tough.
The burden is “four elements are generally required: a false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity; publication or communication of that statement to a third person; fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence; and some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.”
now because this is a public debate, involving public figures, the Sullivan rule
will cut in
“”the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).”
So we look at Actual Malice “Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement’s truth. ”
Mann is going to wrap his case around the reckless disregard issue, most likely.
He may go out and find email, where Rand says something damning, but,
that’s where the real jury trial will rest, most likely.
He’s shown enough to pass a district trial level SLAPP hearing twice, and I suspect he will prevail at the Appellate court level.
That’s because you’re an idiot about the law, as everything else.
My understanding is that Mann used proxy data, tree rings or whatever, for most of his hockey stick graph but as the proxy data showed cooling in the modern era, he switched to real data in his graph which showed warming.
Don’t worry, the proxy data that can’t be checked against observations is totally accurate. Pinky swear.
After the Zimmerman NBC case, it doesn’t look like libel will be easy to prove considering Mann’s status as a public figure.
Science isn’t just “collecting data”, otherwise, ancient Babylonian astrologers and Egyptian priests would be “scientists” too. Hey, after all, they have official credentials granted to them by their central governments…
Chris, this reminds me of your hypocritical stance on Lerner and Zimmerman. Only the side you don’t like has to support their accusations.
When it comes to Mars exploration, stop debating the science. It should be settled.
When it comes to Mars exploration, stop debating the science. It should be settled.
Zing!
It doesn’t matter if Steyn has “no scientific credentials;” he’s perfectly capable of both
spotting fraud when he sees itimagining fraud when it suits him, and calling out a fraudulent huckster if he deems it necessary.Fixed that.
Suppose it is so. Then, Steyn has no scientific standing, and there is no damage to Mann as a result.
Either way, Mann has no case, and he loses.
when something is generally published, then the damages are implicit.
Wrong. Try again.
“Libel is a tort governed by State law. State courts generally follow the common law of libel, which allows recovery of damages without proof of actual harm. Under the traditional rules of libel, injury is presumed from the fact of publication.”
now if you want to go into the details of Sullivan, go ahead, but, i don’t think you
know the common law.
Interesting that you appear to be quoting from Powell’s statement in Welch, which explicitly limited what can be considered libel in State courts. Try this:
“In order to sue for defamation of character, it’s not enough that somebody express or publish a defamatory statement. There must also be real damage caused by the statement.”
Is there evidence that Mann was correct with his hockey stick?
I suspect you reject the evidence.
What evidence shall I reject? Shall I reject name “Greenland” as Viking irony? Shall I reject the huge temperature difference between an ice age and the present interglacial period? Shall I reject the rampant rewriting of history in temperature records? Shall I reject the reality of the 17 year “pause” and substitute my own?
That characterization could be correct but it doesn’t change an American citizen’s right to say it.
Those arguments are especially amusing, coming as they are from the same crowd that was screaming about how science is “socially constructed” and hence not objective, just a few years ago. Funny, isn’t it, that one does not hear that rhetoric much these days.
Liberals believe firmly that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Whatever will win the argument for the day is the order of battle.
It sucks that people forget the key word in that quote. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines” — R.W.Emerson
Ultimately this religious movement will all come apart. You can only get away with screaming that you cannot question the priests unless you are a priest until the court rule against you. At that point everyone will question you.