A Bit of Justice for a Canadian Climate Scientist
Apparently, I grossly misinterpreted the words of Thomas Fuller whom I quoted below. Accordingly, I preface the following article with the following:
I have to ask if you can be factually correct about anything after your misquote of me. The words you think I am using to attack Michael Mann were actually part of an open letter to Ken Cuccinelli, who was trying to prosecute Mann. …and in a post about libel… what a maroon.
Open Letter to Mr. Cuccinelli, Attorney General
Sir, As co-author of a book (Climategate: The CRUtape Letters) that was harshly critical of the performance of Michael Mann and his colleagues, I write in criticism of your decision to investigate Mr. Mann for potential violations of state laws on fraudulent payment of claims.
Mr. Mann has been extensively investigated regarding his work product, and although I consider his actions to be often unprofessional and politically oriented, neither I nor any of the people interviewed for our book have any doubt whatsoever that Mann performed the scientific work he has been commissioned to do, or that he engaged in any fraudulent actions.
No matter what has prompted your investigation, there is no doubt that it will be interpreted as a witch hunt. If you are in fact investigating a credentialed scientist for results that do not suit your political opinion, that interpretation is correct. Unless you can reveal to the public prima facie evidence that shows cause for this investigation, I beg you to reconsider. There are ample avenues of professional and academic recourse for people like me who think he has done something wrong. But being wrong is not a crime, and intimidating scientists not a path that this country, including I presume Virginians, should ever pursue. You may consult with colleagues in Salem to determine how long it takes to live this type of thing down.
Sincerely,
Thomas Fuller
Readers who may be following the personal attacks on climate scientists who make assertions about the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are most likely familiar with Dr. Michael Mann (pictured), arguably the poster child for this phenomenon. From ThinkProgress:
Michael Mann’s defamation suit against Mark Steyn and the National Review took another step forward last month, with D.C. Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg again rejecting a motion to dismiss the suit….Mann sued Steyn, National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), and CEI analyst Randy Simberg in 2012 over what he claims are defamatory articles accusing him of academic fraud and comparing him to a convicted child molester, former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. (Simberg called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”) …. While the law protects pure opinion from being regarded as defamation, multiple judges have now ruled that accusing a scientist of fraud and data manipulation goes beyond that standard, and that Mann’s case can go forward.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, and it may be some time before we see if Mann is ultimately successful with his suit. In any case, of course, his name will forever be associated with academic fraud, and it is for this reason that I personally hope he takes home a bundle as partial compensation for his enormous loss in this regard. In May 2010, one of Mann’s tormentors, climate skeptic Thomas Fuller, gloated:
“No matter what has prompted your investigation, there is no doubt that it will be interpreted as a witch hunt…you may consult with colleagues in Salem to determine how long it takes to live this type of thing down.”
I bring all this up because today justice did, in fact, prevail, as Dr. Andrew Weaver, leading Canadian climate scientist, was awarded $50,000 in his defamation suit against The National Post newspaper in British Columbia, Canada. From the Huffington Post:
Andrew Weaver sued the Post over four articles published between December 2009 and February 2010. He alleged that the stories aimed to destroy his international reputation. In a B.C. Supreme Court decision on Thursday, Justice Emily Burke agreed that the defamatory articles would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Weaver is an incompetent, inept, and unethical scientist and professor. “I conclude the defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts…. the combination and cumulative effect of these articles is such as to adversely impact on Dr. Weaver’s reputation and integrity as a scientist.”
Weaver said Friday he was “absolutely thrilled” with the judgment.
For what it’s worth, so am I.
Hi Craig! you do the right thing ! thanks Peter
Dr Mann’s detractors were lucky that the defamation case took place in Canada where they only had to pay $50,000 in settlement. Had Dr Mann been in a position to bring a similar case in London, it is possible that the damages awarded to him might have run into millions
Right. I was surprised to see the small award. But if he’s happy, so am I.
Thanks Craig; It is a sad day when comedian/entertainers have to settle their differences with radio talk show personalities in court. Such actions provide activist courts the opportunity to mold or contort public opinion.
It’s about time that the Koch Brothers web of lies are getting shown the light of Day and the Kochs Puppets are losing.
Thanks for another inciteful article Craig. It is a sad comment on trends in our society where people, some of whom also profess a religious footing are seen to act and speak, without a sense of moral decency, with a dis-regard for someone’s livelihood and seem to assume that there are no consequences for their thoughts and actions. With such examples it is not surprising that many are doubtful of “Belief.”
AGW deniers are helping civilization into the grave.
There is a fine line to draw. Of course free speech must be protected, but that does not give people the right to defame others by making false accusations.
As I understand it, the law in the UK is somewhat different; correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct, in the UK one can successfully sue if he can prove that he has been damaged by attacks, even if the attacks are factually accurate. Here in the U.S., one cannot successfully sue for damages if the attacks are factually accurate.
Frank…
Quoted above in the post, “While the law protects pure opinion from being regarded as defamation, multiple judges have now ruled that accusing a scientist of fraud and data manipulation goes beyond that standard, and that Mann’s case can go forward.”
Further, the word defamation is synonymous with slander (spoken) and libel (written).
Under English common law, proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defense only in civil libel cases. Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large based on the tendency of the libel to provoke breach of peace, rather than being a crime based upon the actual defamation per se; its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section 6 of the Libel Act 1843 allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defense in criminal libel cases, but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the “Public Benefit”.
I have to ask if you can be factually correct about anything after your misquote of me. The words you think I am using to attack Michael Mann were actually part of an open letter to Ken Cuccinelli, who was trying to prosecute Mann.
…and in a post about libel… what a maroon.
Okay Craigie, here’s the deal. You apologize at the top of the text of your post in an update. You publish my previous post and this one here. Then we’ll let the matter go. Otherwise…
Open Letter to Mr. Cuccinelli, Attorney General
Sir, As co-author of a book (Climategate: The CRUtape Letters) that was harshly critical of the performance of Michael Mann and his colleagues, I write in criticism of your decision to investigate Mr. Mann for potential violations of state laws on fraudulent payment of claims.
Mr. Mann has been extensively investigated regarding his work product, and although I consider his actions to be often unprofessional and politically oriented, neither I nor any of the people interviewed for our book have any doubt whatsoever that Mann performed the scientific work he has been commissioned to do, or that he engaged in any fraudulent actions.
No matter what has prompted your investigation, there is no doubt that it will be interpreted as a witch hunt. If you are in fact investigating a credentialed scientist for results that do not suit your political opinion, that interpretation is correct. Unless you can reveal to the public prima facie evidence that shows cause for this investigation, I beg you to reconsider. There are ample avenues of professional and academic recourse for people like me who think he has done something wrong. But being wrong is not a crime, and intimidating scientists not a path that this country, including I presume Virginians, should ever pursue. You may consult with colleagues in Salem to determine how long it takes to live this type of thing down.
Sincerely,
Thomas Fuller
Wow, sorry. Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/02/06/canadian-climate-scientist/.
Thanks–I appreciate the correction and your comment above. Best of luck in the future.