Comments on: Electronic Frontier Foundation Messes Up

By: Wow

Wow — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:09:05 +0000

You know, i can’t actually find anything at EFF that ties the brief to the EFF, and the only things I find are on the CEI website.

Because it would be interesting to find out WHO put their name to the brief. If anyone at the EFF did so at all, as their personal action, rather than under the aegis of the EFF, officially.

Remember, the Oregon Petition got some valid scientists to sign up because what they were signing up to was misrepresented. So it’s not like this method is never used by deniers.

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Thu, 22 Dec 2016 19:52:35 +0000

They’re getting worried. The useful-idjit and bot armies will be out in force hyping the PR from the denial side.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:24:01 +0000

In reply to The Invisible Man.

Invisible, you have totally misunderstood the argument. In fact I’m pretty sure you never even read this post or my other posts on this matter. You also included a link to a denialist site, which is against the rules here. But I’ll address your comment anyay.

This is not about being right or wrong on the science Mann may well be wrong on some or even all of the science (except he isn’t wrong on most of it, for sure). You suggest there should be an appeal but that is not what happens at this stage. At this stage there could be motions to dismiss the case. There was a motion to dismiss the case roughly on the grounds you are vaguely referring to but the court did not see fit to do so. In other words, the judge disagreed with you.

Mann’s case, quite frankly, is a good one and it has stood initial tests. So, no.

By: The Invisible Man

The Invisible Man — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:12:01 +0000

Greg,
This is not an insult, but you are NOT a lawyer. This is not about one side being all right, and one side being all wrong. Mann has made a mistake in his complaint, and it most certainly should be appealed. Honestly, he should have found lawyers that know better.

In thinking Mann can do no wrong(his science is right, but that is not a golden seal that all of his legal arguments will also be right), you have missed the point of what the EFF is doing.

“By allowing Count V of the Amended Complaint to go forward, which alleges libel per se against Competitive Enterprise Institute(“CEI”) merely for hyperlinking to a purportedly defamatory statement (J.A.79-81), the Superior Court took a substantial portion from the field of free speech rights.”

There are a lot of other procedural things going on here, and Mann quite frankly is making a poor legal case.

Spend some time reading over here;
LINK TO SCIENCE DENIALIST SITE DELETED AS PER POLICY.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:44:23 +0000

In reply to Jamesp. Yes, right. Do you think there are private sekret inaccessible batches of climate data controlled by the Illuminati or something?

By: Jamesp

Jamesp — Wed, 20 Aug 2014 11:30:02 +0000

“Mann’s research is all open source or open access with respect to data, methods, software, and results.”

Yeah, right.. 🙂

By: Obstreperous Applesauce

Obstreperous Applesauce — Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:09:46 +0000

I’d like to know how they got roped into it as well. It may be nothing more than what it seems; a knee jerk tendency to see everything related to climate science as just more debate. In other words the brief would simply be an arrogant and prejudiced act denigrating what climate scientists do, how they pay for speaking up professionally, and their ability to even understand the nature of free speech.

By: Lars

Lars — Fri, 15 Aug 2014 21:04:44 +0000

Well said.