[elklindo69]

Judge Frederick Weisberg handed climate scientist Michael Mann a potentially significant victory in his defamation suit against Mark Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. In a relatively brief order, Judge Weisberg denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery in the suit. He explained:
Opinions and rhetorical hyperbole are protected speech under the First Amendment. Arguably, several of defendants’ statements fall into these protected categories. Some of defendants’ statements, however, contain what could reasonably be understood as assertions of fact. Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable. Viewing the allegations of the amended complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable finder of fact is likely to find in favor of the plaintiff

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... round-two/

[johnforbes]

But the post title makes it sound like rational scientists (objective, intelligent, utterly wonderful, clearly and indisputably correct) against those awful folks who dare to doubt.

Why did Copernicus publish when he did?

Why did Galileo have to say "Eppur si muove"?

Why was Euclidean geometry ended?

Why did monarch Newton reign so long?

Why did Godel and Heisenberg delve into the limitations on knowledge?

Once a person looks at such examples (and there are a zillion others), it is clear the entire history of science, math, etc is littered with examples of false certitude.

The work of Freud, Planck, and Mendel didn't even appear in English until 1900. What we accept today is very different than what the scientific establishment -- the learned journals, the wise elders -- once accepted.

[RealJustme]

Judge Weisberg denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery in the suit.

So nothing has been decided and the man made global warming fanatics think that's a victory? :?

[Clownkicker]

Huh? Wha...?


Oh, I see, it's johnforbes blathering on.
He put me to sleep again with his droning stupidity.
johnny has no idea that he's wrong in everything he just said and implied.
Worse, he's got a false certitude that he knows what he's talking about even though he doesn't.

" What we accept today is very different than what the scientific establishment -- the learned journals, the wise elders -- once accepted."-johnforbes

Accepted, johnny? Once ACCEPTED?
But I thought you were claiming some sort of historical scientific false certitude, but now we see you were only talking about what was once accepted.
So why are you yammering on about some fictional "certitude" that has never existed in science?


"But the post title makes it sound like rational scientists (objective, intelligent, utterly wonderful, clearly and indisputably correct) against those awful folks who dare to doubt."-johnforbes

No, johnny, it doesn't.
That's the way YOU read it, because you're feeble minded.
Intelligent people read it to mean one scientist, not many, of unknown qualifications has a dispute with several conservative ideologues.
And that's all it says.

That your feeble mind makes you susceptible to such facile manipulation doesn't reflect on the poster. It reflects on you. You're exactly the type of viewer FOXnews thrives on.

[johnforbes]

Yep, the post title makes it sound like rational scientists (objective, intelligent, utterly wonderful, clearly and indisputably correct) against those awful folks who dare to doubt.

Why did Copernicus publish when he did?

Why did Galileo have to say "Eppur si muove"?

Why was Euclidean geometry ended?

Why did monarch Newton reign so long?

Why did Godel and Heisenberg delve into the limitations on knowledge?

Once a person looks at such examples (and there are a zillion others), it is clear the entire history of science, math, etc is littered with examples of false certitude.

The work of Freud, Planck, and Mendel didn't even appear in English until 1900. What we accept today is v

[johnforbes]

A dolt such as Clownhicker has never heard of books such as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The work of Freud, Planck, and Mendel didn't even appear in English until 1900.

What we accept today as gospel is very different than what the scientific establishment -- the learned journals, the wise elders -- once accepted.

[Grog]

Why are you addressing Clownkicker? Didn't you state that you don't read his posts? Were you lying then or are you delusional now, or, as usual, both?










Sigmund

[RealJustme]

When a scientist becomes a political ideologue to receive funding, they are no longer a scientist. Think about it liberals.

[elklindo69]

A dolt such as Clownhicker has never heard of books such as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

The work of Freud, Planck, and Mendel didn't even appear in English until 1900.

What we accept today as gospel is very different than what the scientific establishment -- the learned journals, the wise elders -- once accepted.

The basis of the lawsuit is that the conservative journalists made accusations of data fabrication.

Did they prove data was falsified? No

The scientific findings have been reproduced and independently verified.

So are all of the thermometer readings, CO2 readings, and satellite imagery falsified? That's what the conservatives want you to believe...

[johnforbes]

Elkin, even if you finished high school, surely you can read these sentences below and grasp the point.

A dolt such as Clownhicker has never heard of books such as The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Go read a few books on the history of science. I'm not a scientist, nor are you, so any lay reader can look at some of the episodes which constitute the history of science.

The work of Freud, Planck, and Mendel didn't even appear in English until 1900.

What we accept today as gospel is very different than what the scientific establishment -- the learned journals, the wise elders -- once accepted.

Point being: A rational man is very slow to accept what is claimed to be scientific certitude. It may be certitude, but history suggests caution.

[divermouse]

some people say we should all "step over here" and wait for godot. and the right confirms mankind’s absolute absurdity. bible based pure hope and **** printed jammies. rejects ad nauseum, man enhanced global warming. why you may so ask? well because the oil and coal industries said it's not their responsibility. poor people down wind /stream should man up, jerk their boots to their shoulders and become instant, all knowing, top of warton lazy “professionals” ( after all welding, building skyscrapers, tunnels, mining gold, digging ditches is the real hard work), plant more trees… no don't! warming means a longer growing period... 'cept for the other bummer of longer dry seasons and the damn snow machines, made in china just can't be made fast enough for the ski resort... frac more oil, drain those rural water wells dry ,pump proprietary chemicals down the hole jack up the whole planet. ah what to do, what to do, what t… well vote republican, that’s what. after all who need regulations to keep the banks from stealing money they can just blame it on the poor. Long as I get mine fuck ‘em

the minons march right in step after all their stock goes up 10 cents for the ceos 900K in back dated government welfare diamonds to the few.. no thanks I’ll stay right here and wait for nothing to arrive. Assholes probably liked the superbowl.and though the ads genius.

[RealJustme]

Drivermouse glad to see you haven't bought into "man made global warming" good for you.

We have children in hospitals who's treatment is no longer covered when they're families were forced onto Obamacare plans but yet there are those who care more about giving billions to green energy scammers. To us, the children's medical care is more important than stuffing some scammers bank accounts.

[elklindo69]

Drivermouse glad to see you haven't bought into "man made global warming" good for you.

We have children in hospitals who's treatment is no longer covered when they're families were forced onto Obamacare plans but yet there are those who care more about giving billions to green energy scammers. To us, the children's medical care is more important than stuffing some scammers bank accounts.

You keep on repeating the same bullshit over and over, so you can't make it up any more...

:lol:

[johnforbes]

Divermouse, I'm sure you mentioned digging ditches as rhetoric, but some of us have actually done that.

With pick and shovel.