The Sandusky of Science

[Veldan Rath]

Bad taste. Sueable over? No.

[Aimless]

Bad taste. Sueable over? No.

I don't care about the Sandusky comparison, I'm only bringing up the factual (and incorrect) allegation of scientific fraud. That's not bad taste or a simple insult, it's defamation. Had Mann not been a sort of public figure it would, legally, have been more clear cut.

[Dreadnaught]

Why? The allegation has been made before. His own university investigated him for fraud. It's not defamation to call someone fraudulent when a bunch of people are saying he might be fraudulent.

You might not think he's a fraud, but that's irrelevant. The standard for libel must be high, or everyone from MPs to people on this forum would be suing each other all the time.

Oh wait, this was a thread about the UK.

[Aimless]

Why? The allegation has been made before. His own university investigated him for fraud. It's not defamation to call someone fraudulent when a bunch of people are saying he might be fraudulent.

various inquiries into the validity of his work (and that of others) were launched. But all of those inquiries came to roughly the same conclusions: the e-mails were being quoted out of context, and there was no evidence of improper science or any form of a conspiracy.

...

academic institutions and governmental entities alike, including the US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation, have conducted investigations into Dr. Mann's work, and found the allegations of academic fraud to be baseless. Every such investigation—and every replication of Dr. Mann's work—has concluded that Dr. Mann's research and conclusions were properly conducted and fairly presented.

...

The authors should be happy they're not based in Australia. That country's government agencies include the Australian Communications and Media Authority and it recently issued a ruling responding to some factually challenged radio broadcasts on climate change. The Authority ordered the host and his staff to undergo training on factual accuracy, and the station needs to track its fact-checking process for six weeks afterwards.

But by all means Dr. Spin-Good, carry on

[Dreadnaught]

How is it spin to argue that it's not libel to call someone a fraud when he's been accused to being a fraud? It doesn't matter if his peer institutions have "absolved" him; the core argument is those institutions are corrupt and can't fairly judge him. People make those kinds of arguments all the time.

What's creepy is that you cited Australia "re educating" people to only speak the "truth" as dictated by the state. Care to spin that to explain how it isn't utterly tyrannical for the state to dictate "facts" to the media?

[Aimless]

How is it spin to argue that it's not libel to call someone a fraud when he's been accused to being a fraud? It doesn't matter if his peer institutions have "absolved" him; the core argument is those institutions are corrupt and can't fairly judge him. People make those kinds of arguments all the time.

Sure, people say and think stupid and factually incorrect things all the time, and yet your courts can usually set reasonable standards for what the truth is, what the right thing is, etc. If the "core argument" is that "those institutions are corrupt and can't fairly judge him" then that "argument" can be scrutinised and its truth-value can be determined. It turns out that the issue you raise is not, in reality, an insurmountable obstacle. Over the course of a trial it's possible and necessary to assess the reliability/credibility of evidence and of witnesses and of almost every relevant argument. If this is possible in a court that can make judgements that bind people outside the court, then clearly the standards used by courts can to some extent be applied to things that happen outside courtrooms. He may be accused of committing scientific fraud by conspiracy theorists and idiots, but there is no absolute legal protection for harmful and untruthful speech. In the US these people may perhaps be able to cast these allegations as "fair comment", which they of course aren't.

What's creepy is that you cited Australia "re educating" people to only speak the "truth" as dictated by the state. Care to spin that to explain how it isn't utterly tyrannical for the state to dictate "facts" to the media?

The station in question was bound to follow the ABC's Code of Practice and alleged violations of that Code (in this case the clauses about accuracy and timely response to complaints/challenges) are investigated and ruled on by the ACMA. I think your bizarre use of quotation marks around the word "facts" is "creepy".

[Khendraja'aro]

No need to put quotations marks around creepy.

[Lewkowski]

The government that can silence criticism that you find illegitimate can also silence criticism that you find legitimate.

[Aimless]

The government that can silence criticism that you find illegitimate can also silence criticism that you find legitimate.

Fortunately there are important principal differences between religious and secular approaches to morality

[LittleFuzzy]

Fortunately there are important principal differences between religious and secular approaches to morality

There are? Care to explicate that, because as you know I don't care anymore for legislating secular morality than I do for legislating religious morality. Your desire to engage in social engineering always gives me shivers.

[Aimless]

There are? Care to explicate that, because as you know I don't care anymore for legislating secular morality than I do for legislating religious morality.

It's a reference to Lewk's recent thread wherein we discussed whether or not it matters how we arrive at answers/solutions/goals; not an endorsement of tyranny

[Dreadnaught]

Sure, people say and think stupid and factually incorrect things all the time, and yet your courts can usually set reasonable standards for what the truth is, what the right thing is, etc. If the "core argument" is that "those institutions are corrupt and can't fairly judge him" then that "argument" can be scrutinised and its truth-value can be determined. It turns out that the issue you raise is not, in reality, an insurmountable obstacle. Over the course of a trial it's possible and necessary to assess the reliability/credibility of evidence and of witnesses and of almost every relevant argument. If this is possible in a court that can make judgements that bind people outside the court, then clearly the standards used by courts can to some extent be applied to things that happen outside courtrooms. He may be accused of committing scientific fraud by conspiracy theorists and idiots, but there is no absolute legal protection for harmful and untruthful speech. In the US these people may perhaps be able to cast these allegations as "fair comment", which they of course aren't.

The station in question was bound to follow the ABC's Code of Practice and alleged violations of that Code (in this case the clauses about accuracy and timely response to complaints/challenges) are investigated and ruled on by the ACMA. I think your bizarre use of quotation marks around the word "facts" is "creepy".

No need to put quotations marks around creepy.

You both don't seem to understand the acceptable scope of a libel trial.

But more distressingly, you both seem to have zero respect for the basic principles of free speech and free expression.

I know you Yurps are-- achem-- challenged when it comes to individual rights. But you both are creepily chortling with approval at the idea of the state dictating its own version of the truth to the media. Do you seriously not see how that's a bad thing?

[Aimless]

You both don't seem to understand the acceptable scope of a libel trial.

I understand the scope of a libel trial, I'm just propping up the good guy's side; you don't seem to understand what a matter of fact is.

But more distressingly, you both seem to have zero respect for the basic principles of free speech and free expression.

I know you Yurps are-- achem-- challenged when it comes to individual rights. But you both are creepily chortling with approval at the idea of the state dictating its own version of the truth to the media. Do you seriously not see how that's a bad thing?

If you stood on trial for a murder you did not commit, would you be okay with being found guilty on the basis of opinion, fantasy, religious belief, lies?

[Dreadnaught]

I understand the scope of a libel trial, I'm just propping up the good guy's side; you don't seem to understand what a matter of fact is.

If you stood on trial for a murder you did not commit, would you be okay with being found guilty on the basis of opinion, fantasy, religious belief, lies?

The "good guy" is almost never the thin-skinned ass suing for libel. Most people who sue for libel aren't the "good guy" because they are suing for libel.

So being called names on the Internet is equivalent to being falsely prosecuted by the state for murder? Are you insane?

[Aimless]

The "good guy" is almost never the thin-skinned ass suing for libel. Most people who sue for libel aren't the "good guy" because they are suing for libel.

Be that as it may, he is indeed the good guy; more to the point, the good guy's side is the side of science, which is the side I was propping up in this discussion. I refer you to previous posts on the topic of accuracy when making factual claims. While you seem to think I am interested in the defamation aspect to the exclusion of all else, I am in fact interested mostly in the matter of our attitudes towards factual claims in general and climate science in particular.

So being called names on the Internet is equivalent to being falsely prosecuted by the state for murder? Are you insane?

Naturally the two are not equivalent, and that was not what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the question of our standards for/approach to evidence and the determination of truth/facts.

[Flixy]

If you stood on trial for a murder you did not commit, would you be okay with being found guilty on the basis of opinion, fantasy, religious belief, lies?

As dread pointed out, not really the same. And this happens all the time, media goes for a story all the time, and while US mainstream media do seem worse than our mainstream ones this happens here a lot too. Shitty? Sure. But if you ban it, wouldn't that be a serious threat to investigative journalism? Besides, it's only libel if you knowingly lie, right? That seems incredibly hard to prove, and I assume these guys actually do believe it. If they flat out lie about facts, that's a different matter, but comparing people to bad people or things happens all the time. Politicians are compared to dictators, criminals and stuff like that non-stop. Would also kill comedy, comparing, with hyperbole, is used a lot. You can't just ban it because you don;t like what happens in this case.

[Aimless]

As dread pointed out, not really the same.

As I said in the post above yours, I am not trying to say that murder and libel are equivalent. I was addressing Dread's apparent position on facts/truth/evidence.

And this happens all the time, media goes for a story all the time, and while US mainstream media do seem worse than our mainstream ones this happens here a lot too. Shitty? Sure. But if you ban it, wouldn't that be a serious threat to investigative journalism? Besides, it's only libel if you knowingly lie, right? That seems incredibly hard to prove, and I assume these guys actually do believe it. If they flat out lie about facts, that's a different matter, but comparing people to bad people or things happens all the time. Politicians are compared to dictators, criminals and stuff like that non-stop. Would also kill comedy, comparing, with hyperbole, is used a lot. You can't just ban it because you don;t like what happens in this case.

I'm not trying to ban it. I'm eager to see what happens when a court is forced to rule on what the facts of climate science are. The point you make at the end of your post is more relevant to the comparison with Sandusky.

[Flixy]

Courts don't have to rule on what the facts are - they just have to rule whether the defendant actually believes it's fraudulent research or not.

[Khendraja'aro]

Most people who sue for libel aren't the "good guy" because they are suing for libel.

What kind of idiocy is that? "Most people"? Are we now pulling facts from thin air?

In the same vein:

Rape victims asked for it because they dressed sexy or didn't say no loud enough.
Whistleblowers are just obnoxious busybodies.

Oh, I get it. Freedom of Speech and all this shit. Yeah, freedom trumps everything. Right. I forgot. How silly of me.

Someone here obviously thinks that words have no power. You can say whatever you like, it doesn't change anything. In what kind of fantasy world are those people living?

[Loki]

Words certainly do have power. I can post online saying that store x has terrible food. That could conceivably drive away a lot of customers. Do you think I should be banned from doing so? What if the food is top-notch but I happen to think it's terrible anyway?

[Lewkowski]

What kind of idiocy is that? "Most people"? Are we now pulling facts from thin air?

In the same vein:

Rape victims asked for it because they dressed sexy or didn't say no loud enough.
Whistleblowers are just obnoxious busybodies.

Oh, I get it. Freedom of Speech and all this shit. Yeah, freedom trumps everything. Right. I forgot. How silly of me.

Someone here obviously thinks that words have no power. You can say whatever you like, it doesn't change anything. In what kind of fantasy world are those people living?

Are you suggesting we should outlaw the speech of people who say "Rape victims asked for it because they dressed sexy or didn't say no loud enough." ?

[Loki]

Pretty sure he's suggesting we ban any speech he disagrees with. Seems to be the same with Minx.

[Aimless]

Pretty sure he's suggesting we ban any speech he disagrees with. Seems to be the same with Minx.

Are you stupid, illiterate, malicious or just unusually bitter today?

[Khendraja'aro]

Words certainly do have power. I can post online saying that store x has terrible food. That could conceivably drive away a lot of customers. Do you think I should be banned from doing so? What if the food is top-notch but I happen to think it's terrible anyway?

Way to miss the point.

I was speaking against Dread's moronic: "The victim is the evil-doer here!" attitude.

[Aimless]

Courts don't have to rule on what the facts are - they just have to rule whether the defendant actually believes it's fraudulent research or not.

If this goes to trial, then the court may be required to determine what the facts are.

For Mann's side to prevail, they'll have to prove (among other things) that the claims are of a factual nature but are demonstrably untruthful. They will also have to prove that the dingdongs showed a reckless disregard for the truthfulness of their (allegedly factual) claims. (and then there's the issue of proving actual malice)

If the dingdongs demonstrate that their claims are truthful, they're of course off the hook. If they demonstrate that the accusation of scientific fraud does not deal with a matter of fact, they may be off the hook. If they demonstrate that they were simply expressing opinions, they may be off the hook. If it turns out that their claims were untruthful but were not simply expressions of opinion or some sort of fair commentary, sure, you'd definitely end up dealing with the issue of whether or not they really believe the research to be fraudulent. But much of the rest may require the court to establish, for the purposes of law, what the facts of the matter are.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not trying to ban it. I'm eager to see what happens when a court is forced to rule on what the facts of climate science are. The point you make at the end of your post is more relevant to the comparison with Sandusky.

The "facts" of climate science is there are a number of different models out there and plenty of different measured results for different periods of time. Most to all of them are scientifically supportable. We don't have facts, we have interpretations and that's one of the reasons the courts want to avoid exactly what you want.

[Aimless]

The "facts" of climate science is there are a number of different models out there and plenty of different measured results for different periods of time. Most to all of them are scientifically supportable. We don't have facts, we have interpretations and that's one of the reasons the courts want to avoid exactly what you want.

And on the matter of whether or not Mann's data is fraudulent?

[Loki]

I'm curious what you think should happen to any anonymous reviewer (for a journal) who claims that the data in the manuscript they're reviewing is fraudulent? Should they be sued for libel?

[Aimless]

I'm curious what you think should happen to any anonymous reviewer (for a journal) who claims that the data in the manuscript they're reviewing is fraudulent? Should they be sued for libel?

"Should" or "can"? Before or after there have been investigations?

[Aimless]

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/...efamation.html