The trial of the century.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

The trial of the century.

Michael Mann doesn’t like people calling him a fraud for torturing and manipulating the climate data to create the false illusion that the climate is warming. And so, he is trying to shut down any criticism or analysis of his very poorly done science by using the power of government to enforce his will.

Two quotes from the article that are of interest:

Here is the point at which we need a little primer on libel laws, which hinge on the differentiation between facts and opinion. It is libel to maliciously fabricate facts about someone. (It is not libel to erroneously report a false fact, so long as you did so with good faith reason to believe that it was true, though you are required to issue a correction.) But you are free to give whatever evaluation of the facts you like, including a negative evaluation of another person’s ideas, thinking method, and character. It is legal for me, for example, to say that Michael Mann is a liar, if I don’t believe that his erroneous scientific conclusions are the product of honest error. It is also legal for me to say that he is a coward and a liar, for hiding behind libel laws in an attempt to suppress criticism.

These are all reasons that the lawsuit should have been summarily thrown out. It goes beyond the legitimate scope of libel and defamation laws and constitutes an attempt to suppress opinions that are considered politically correct.

And this:

In other words, Steyn’s evaluation of Mann’s scientific claims can be legally suppressed because Steyn dares to question the conclusions of established scientific institutions connected to the government. On this basis, the DC Superior Court arrives at the preposterous conclusion that it is a violation of Mann’s rights to “question his intellect and reasoning.” That’s an awfully nice prerogative to be granted by government: an exemption against any challenge to your reasoning.

I said before that I don’t know how the rest of us skeptics escaped being sued along with Steyn. Now we know. Mann is attempting to establish a precedent for climate censorship. If he wins this suit, then we’re all targets.

And global warming activists like Mann call me a “denier?”

Share

6 comments

  • Cotour

    I guess you can expect a cease and desist letter from his lawyers?

  • Orion314

    FACISM REARS IT’S UGLY HEAD…..THIS IS A TREND WE CAN EXPECT UNTIL ANOTHER GENERAL BLACKJACK PERSHING SHOWS UP TO LEAD THE SLAVE REVOLT…FOR THOSE UNFAMILAR WITH THIS MAN FROM HISTORY, LOOK HIM UP, AND SEE HOW HE PUT DOWN THE MUSLIM UPRISING WHEN ALL OTHERS FAILED TO… IT MAKES FOR SOME INTERESTING READING.

  • Please, don’t write your comments all in caps. It is bad internet manners, as it makes it look like you are yelling at us.

  • Chris Kirkkendall

    This is truly scary – it really does take us back to a time when a totalitarian regime could not only dictate people’s actions, but even their thoughts & words as well.

    I particularly like this line:

    “If it is a sin to doubt, then there is no science”… that is SO true! Can you imagine it being illegal to challenge the belief that the Earth is flat ?? And things were that way at one time, but we should be way beyond that now…

    I literally pray to God this ridiculous suit gets tossed. I have to think it would be appealed if upheld, all the way to the USSC if necessary. As much as they sometimes issue some stupid rulings, I can’t imagine the Supremes would uphold something like this – in fact, I’d expect them to throw it out. But then, what do I know – I never would’ve guessed Chief Justice Roberts would rule in favor of ObamaCare…

  • Orion314

    Apologies for the caps, no shouting was intended. Here at work, and all typing must be in caps, probably to offset the shitty monitors we are forced to use ;)
    Cheers to all….

  • Jwing

    “Unless one has the proper credentials or greater pay grade, an ordinary citizen is not licensed to critique ANY government official’s actions, statements or writings while that official is preforming his duties. All such actions are punishable by no less than ten years in federal prison as all official federally funded government actions are protected and beyond reproach as the first amendment no longer applies.” CFR 2016 666:666:666

    Does this sound ridiculous now? Maybe so…but I fear Orwell was truly prophetic and the current young and naïve generation will have no difficulty swallowing this lie for the good of the planet or some such nonsense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *