Comments on: Larry Clifton on Michael Mann's Suit: Nope, wrong, sorry.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 13:03:06 +0000

Now you know.

By: Larry Clifton

Larry Clifton — Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:55:23 +0000

Greg, what does “whinging” (from article) mean? Perhaps you need an editor for your little lefty blog. But thanks for writing an entire article based on my article.

By: Dog Days Coming - Real Conservatives are Conservationists | Paul Douglas Weather ServicesPaul Douglas Weather Services

Tue, 19 Aug 2014 05:04:51 +0000

[…] or a blatant case of libel? Here’s one perspective at Daily Kos: “…As Greg Laden points out, the suit is not about scientific criticism, but rather “a very specific and actionable […]

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 17:29:31 +0000

Dave, you can’t sue someone for saying the truth. You, in this comment, are guilty of pressing a false balance. You are wrong.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 17:26:51 +0000

Let’s put this in schoolyard terms: if Mann is right and Steyn is wrong, then Mann should be sued a dozen times for his public comments that differing climate scientists are paid deniers in the service of the Kochs or other Unnamed Big Money Rightists. Or we could just say that everyone should grin and bear it like adults, but that wouldn’t grind your axe.

By: Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 12:32:58 +0000

[…] Larry Clifton della Digital Review cerca di descrivere il processo Mann vs. National Review come un tentativo da parte del scienziato di censurare le critiche scientifiche. In realtà erano accuse di aver falsificato i dati dell’hockey stick 1999, riprodotto nel frattempo da decine di gruppi indipendenti, accuse accompagnate dal paragone con uno stupratore di minorenni usato anche dal diffamatore Maurizio Morabito. Conclusione di Greg Laden: […]

By: Lars

Lars — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 22:06:40 +0000

While you should never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to stupidity, in this case I have to disagree. Certainly the misunderstanding is willful on the part of the plaintiffs – Mark Steyn will be cut to ribbons on the stand is he has to defend his knowledge of climate science, but he is reframing this case as a free speech issue. And a lot of the chorus on the Right are providing support because it can be made to look like Mann (and by extension, Science, that monolith) is using the law to crush debate. I think that what looks like incomprehension is actually this reframing manoeuvre, serving to promote the idea that scientists are just another special interest group and that they won’t fight fair when crossed.
Hope that I don’t sound obtuse here, Greg, and that I got your point. My office seems to be an anoxic environment on Friday afternoons.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:38:30 +0000

Good point, Lars. But at the same time there is simply a basic misunderstanding of what the suit is about, willfully on the part of the plaintiffs, maybe less willfully on the part of those dragged into going along with the incorrect interpretation.

The argument addressed in the suit is not about climate change or science. Not even a little.

By: Lars

Lars — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:03:21 +0000

A lot of the commentary on this case from the Right seems to be predicated on the assumption that the same norms of discourse which prevail in business and politics should apply to science. I don’t think that this is a failure of comprehension. I think that it’s an effort to destroy the intellectual autonomy of the natural sciences. Certainly that seemed to be the case with McIntyre and his efforts to nobble Mann.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 13:43:42 +0000

Yes, I noticed that!