Nullius in verba takes on a hole new meaning in the
cli-sci debate, Mark Jacobson, Michael Mann et Al,
Jugadish Shukla, David Appall…
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by beththeserf
↧
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Forrest Gardener
Don you are welcome to your views but to support my approach, here is an excerpt from the findlaw.com site:
One essential element in any defamation action is that the defendant published something defamatory about the plaintiff. A communication may be considered defamatory “if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him,” according to the American Restatement of Torts (or “The Restatement”).
I ask again, who has a lower estimation of Mann as a result of what Stein wrote? What persons has been deterred from associating with him?
Google it yourself!
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Forrest Gardener
You may or may not care to wait until the court makes its decision Don.
People get far too excited over what they think courts may or should do.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by RiHo08
Brando S
In lawyers speak: “what you knew or SHOULD have known…” does not mitigate the feelings of someone who is being sued and intimidated. In other circles, and apparently not in the lawyers world, adversarial dialogue would be perceived as bad behavior, which it is.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Steven Mosher
Imagine if mcintyre has taken PNAS to court over process
https://climateaudit.org/2007/04/19/a-try-for-thompson-data-at-pnas/
↧
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Steven Mosher
Brandon: “The reality is Galileo’s problems stemmed almost entirely from the fact he didn’t have evidence to prove his theories. ”
Brandon: “David Appell, given I never said Galileo had no evidence, I am not surprised you have no idea where I got such an idea”
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
I spent far more time than I had intended reviewing the history of the Clack et al. paper today, and I have to say, I have no sympathy for the authors of it. Prior to Jacobson creating a detailed list of complaints about supposed errors in the paper, the paper contained a staggering number of errors that made it seem the authors had no idea what they were talking about.
However, changes the authors made in response to Jacobson’s complaints did improve the paper in regard to some things, and those changes may have been enough to give them deniability in any lawsuit. For instance, the paper originally said Jacobson’s values for hydroelectric power were a maximum, not an average. There was no uncertainty in that statement, and Jacobson rightly complained as it was completely untrue. For the final version of the paper a couple changes were made which seem to allude to the authors knowledge those values were averages, not maximum, even as the authors maintained their original portrayal. The result is people reading the paper would likely be misled as to what Jacobson’s values were, but at the same time, the Clack et al. authors may have a fig leaf of, “If you look close enough at an entirely different section/document, you can see we knew those values were averages, not maximums.”
Or perhaps the changes were due to sloppiness. I wouldn’t rule that possibility out. I kept being distracted by strange things like the authors adding 87.48 GW and 57.68 GW and getting 145.26 GW for their paper while adding the two together and getting 145.16 GW for their Supporting Information. There were enough little things like that in the paper and its previous versions that I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming too much competence.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by matthewrmarler
Brandon S: You should know the questions you ask are misleading.
In what ways are my questions misleading? Why is it defamation for a scientist to claim that an assumption made in a second scientist’s derivations is false? Why should anyone accept the second scientist’s assertion that the first scientist’s criticism is a “lie”?
Are my questions “misleading” because you say so? Why not simply answer them and show us how the correct answers, in your opinion, are in fact misleading? I think you are not thinking clearly about scientific debate and defamation. If you think something in the complaint clearly illustrates defamation, what was it that I missed?
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by matthewrmarler
Brandon S: I spent far more time than I had intended reviewing the history of the Clack et al. paper today, and I have to say, I have no sympathy for the authors of it.
Any body’s sympathy is not the issue. Did the defendant’s commit defamation?
I kept being distracted by strange things like the authors adding 87.48 GW and 57.68 GW and getting 145.26 GW for their paper while adding the two together and getting 145.16 GW for their Supporting Information.
That’s it? When everyone knows that there are probably not more than two significant figures that are reliable in the first place? You are making typos the basis of the claim of defamation?
↧
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by jim2
Mark Z. Jacobson apparently doesn’t understand how science works. He was and is free to publish a rebuttal to what he believes to be lies, mistakes, or whatever in a journal. He is an id-eee-ut for taking this to court. Just sayin’.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by jim2
Because Mark Jacobson is an id-eeeee-ut, that’s why.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Don Monfort
A comment seems to have gone astray. Anyway Gump, I told you to look at a tree and you Googled the forest. It’s called “defamation per se”. I should have known to put it in quotes, for the slow ones.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Forrest Gardener
Don, talking of slow ones, you would of course realise that you need to pass the defamation threshold before you award damages for defamation per se.
Your attempted insult only persuades people you have nothing else to offer.
Now, is there anything else you want to say?
↧
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Don Monfort
I am trying to post this here for the third time.
For Forrest Gump:
Google “defamation per se”. I should have put it in quotes for the slow ones.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Don Monfort
The clown still has not bothered to look it up:
Findlaw:
“However, some types of false statements are considered so damaging that they are deemed defamatory on their face (“defamation per se”). This is in contrast to “defamation per quod” where the false statement is not inherently defamatory and has to be evaluated in the context of additional facts. Generally, for defamation per se, the statements are presumed harmful whereas for defamation per quod the damage must be proven.”
Do you know what that means, clown?
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Forrest Gardener
I know what that means Don. I’m just not convinced that you do. You appear to have missed the phrase “so damaging”.
Clown? Right back at you!
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Don Monfort
You obviously don’t know what it means, Gumpy. You still have not done your homework. I gave you a brief explanation of defamation per se. I don’t get paid for this service. I am not going to help you any more.
↧
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by DaveJR
Except if you want to publish in a journal then you have to jump through journal publication hoops and peer gate keeping. This may be two wackos having a go at each other but that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve seen enough journal “nastiness” to know that they are not impartial publishers of science (especially regarding anything related to greenery) and you have no right of reply.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by Forrest Gardener
I’m pleased to hear you are not being paid. I repeat that I see nothing to persuade me that you understand what you are writing. Your attempted insults are pathetic.
Over and out unless you have anything to add.
↧
Comment on Stanford Prof sues scientists who criticized him – demands $10M by jddohio
“Complaint to protect and respect the integrity of science when all other options exhausted” Very stupid statement. Judges and a jury cannot be relied upon to answer complicated scientific questions. So, why is he going to an incompetent institution to resolve his scientific questions. He could simply publish an article elsewhere, if all he was concerned about was the integrity of science. He could also publish a detailed blog post. He could attend appropriate scientific meetings and make his point at those.
Also, his lawyer’s statement was: “His complaint does not seek to litigate science.” Pretty stupid statement by lawyer. Complaints are a part of litigation. Would also mention that if his concern was merely the integrity of science, he could have simply asked for a judgment in his favor and an award of something like $1,000. (The principle and not the money is the most effective remedy for any scientific mistakes. Julian Simon’s bet only resulted in a payment of $576, but it was very influential) Instead he refers to potentially $10,000,000 in damages. This is more in line with petty intimidation than scientific integrity.
JD
↧
