bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,158
- 47,300
- 2,180
The lawsuit is obviously a SLAPP suit-- a strategic lawsuit against public participation-- and this judge is obviously in the tank with the fraudsters. The Constitutional issue here couldn't be more clear. AGW is a matter of intense public debate, and the debate falls entirely within the bounds of constitutionally protected freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Mann is a public figure, and Steyn is a journalist/columnist, and long-standing legal precedent properly insulates journalists from libel claims brought by public figures based on public debates.
The irony is that Mann concealed his emails from the Virginia attorney general who was investigating AGW scientific fraud, and Mann was a core co-conspirator in the Climategate emails ("Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline") that should have earned him and the other criminals vigorous criminal prosecution for fraud and evasion of FOIA laws.
This decision to continue the lawsuit resonates with the corrupt intelligent design rulings and school prayer rulings of recent decades.
The formula works well: find a tool posing as a judge, file a lawsuit to shut your target up, and you win.
Jonescu:
If a court can decide that Mann's research "and conclusions" have been sufficiently vindicated as to be judged provably "sound" -- that is, sound enough to be regarded as legally unassailable -- then what does this imply about the research and results of all those who believe they are proving Mann's conclusions false? The implication is clear enough: anthropogenic global warming is one area of truth-seeking that is no longer merely "settled science" (whatever that means), but is now settled law. It is now, apparently, legally dangerous to question this theory, unless one prefaces one's questions with the proviso that the research supporting the theory was conducted with the purest scientific heart, and that its conclusions are sound.
When you are dragged into court for teaching about ID or praying in school or questioning global warming or helping a kid who doesn't want to be gay, then this ain't America no more.
We are far down the road to totalitarianism when "settled science" is settled law.
The irony is that Mann concealed his emails from the Virginia attorney general who was investigating AGW scientific fraud, and Mann was a core co-conspirator in the Climategate emails ("Mike's Nature trick... to hide the decline") that should have earned him and the other criminals vigorous criminal prosecution for fraud and evasion of FOIA laws.
This decision to continue the lawsuit resonates with the corrupt intelligent design rulings and school prayer rulings of recent decades.
The formula works well: find a tool posing as a judge, file a lawsuit to shut your target up, and you win.
Jonescu:
If a court can decide that Mann's research "and conclusions" have been sufficiently vindicated as to be judged provably "sound" -- that is, sound enough to be regarded as legally unassailable -- then what does this imply about the research and results of all those who believe they are proving Mann's conclusions false? The implication is clear enough: anthropogenic global warming is one area of truth-seeking that is no longer merely "settled science" (whatever that means), but is now settled law. It is now, apparently, legally dangerous to question this theory, unless one prefaces one's questions with the proviso that the research supporting the theory was conducted with the purest scientific heart, and that its conclusions are sound.
When you are dragged into court for teaching about ID or praying in school or questioning global warming or helping a kid who doesn't want to be gay, then this ain't America no more.
We are far down the road to totalitarianism when "settled science" is settled law.
