3 ms·
I don't think this has any consequences for science. The question is whether the language / metaphor was too extreme as to be defamation.
by emmelaich 3y ago
I don't think this has any consequences for science.
The question is whether the language / metaphor was too extreme as to be defamation.
- jl6 3y ago"In court, Mann has argued he lost funding and research opportunities" Seems like there is a strong potential for a chilling effect on scientific enquiry if publishing scientific papers leads to this kind of political vilification.
- lebean 3y agoHard to attribute that to defamation. Not saying there's no causal link, but funding can be fickle and this could happen if climate change science ever becomes unsexy or saturated.
- edgyquant 3y agoHard to claim people like this aren’t in it for the money/as just a job when they then sue for damages in court when attacked for their research. It might not have been a nice way to say it, but scientific discourse is about pushing hard to guarantee accuracy and if anyone believes the data was cherry picked or inaccurate they should have every right to say so. What precedent would it set if you could sue scientific skeptics for damages, what does this accomplish except for disincentivizing healthy scientific discourse?
- gonewest 3y agoName me a case where it was crucial to advancing serious and healthy scientific discourse by comparing one of the researchers a molester. Why would that ever be necessary?
- SentientOctopus 3y agoI was talking to a friend a couple of days ago who believes climate change is all wrong science and he brought up that "the guy who 'invented' the hockey curve is being sued because it is wrong". It doesn't matter whether he wins, the damage is done and now his children believe it is wrong science... That's the damage...