7 ms·

This is a classic case of just how factually, scientifically, and morally bankrupt the money-backed climate denialism movement is. Here was a huge dustup, lots

This is a classic case of just how factually, scientifically, and morally bankrupt the money-backed climate denialism movement is. Here was a huge dustup, lots of sizzle, tons and tons of examination, and the end result: it all held up! There's a looooot of stuff in all of science that could be proven to be wrong, so going after something so vigorously, and not having anything to show for it at the end is absolutely sad. Really, you couldn't find any bad analysis to go after instead? It's quite likely that all of climate science is of much much higher quality than the typical science that makes it into the newspapers. What other body of science has something like the IPCC which works so hard to review and summarize the latest knowledge? Reminds me of that physicist who started the BEST effort around temperature readings. He thought "I'm a physicist, and there's so much noise about sloppy climate science, I'll go clean it up and show these people how real analysis is done," and then just came up with exactly the same results that the climate scientists had done. But now, since it was from a physicist at a tier 1 institution, it was finally good work...

lolinder 3y ago
It's actually a very weird verdict that makes me (far from a climate skeptic) feel very icky. Whether or not you like Steyn, he makes a valid point here: > “We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,” Steyn said on Thursday through his manager. “And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages.” The jury essentially acknowledged that there was no actual damage, but then proceeded to levy an enormous punitive fine for... reasons. That feels less like the jury was persuaded by hard evidence that Mann was in the right and more that the jury was persuaded that Steyn was subjectively a bad person who needed punishing, which is a weird outcome.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Edit: not stated at all in this, but which my main point, is that the mistake was that the jury messed up on the compensatory damages, not that the punitive damages are wrong. Coffee is still kicking in... Ok, so active harassment of a person, by a think tank, perpetuating lies and making comparisons to pedophilia is "no damages"? This spurred on harassment including hacking of email contents. What is possibly "icky" about a defamation result, other than the jury didn't find higher compensatory damages? If it's OK in our society for individuals to be attacked with lies like this, with money undirected through think tanks, are you OK with your professional life and personal life being intruded in this way with lies? Really?
  - listless 3y ago
    I think this verdict is both good and bad. We've been dragging people through the mud over nothing now for a while and celebrating it. Society is sick. It needs to stop. At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.
    - wolrah 3y ago
      > At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". In what way? This has nothing to do with disagreement, it's about defamation. Claiming that a researcher was intentionally and fraudulently manipulating data is an entirely different ballpark from disagreeing with their methods or conclusions. The various groups who have decided as a matter of dogma that their pet theory is correct therefore all of science must be a conspiracy to cover up the truth will of course present things as if this verdict threatens any dissent, but that's simply nonsense. > Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far. We need people who question science *in good faith*. People who disagree because they have an alternative that also fits the known facts, or because they see valid weaknesses in the methods used to come to the conclusion. Scientific progress is built on questioning things. We do not need people like the defendants in this case who have decided that climate change is an evil liberal conspiracy to empower governments. We do not need people like Jenny McCarthy, RFK Jr., etc. who have decided that all the different often entirely unrelated kinds of vaccines in the world are somehow part of the same conspiracy to do...something. These people are not adding to the discussion, they're not contributing to progress, they're at best getting in the way and in a lot of cases trying their hardest to push things back. I could go on and on. Creationists, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, etc. will all scream about how the scientific establishment is silencing them for questioning things, but the reality is they're just wrong, annoying, and deserve no credit for anything because they're not doing it in good faith. They're not trying to find the truth, they've decided they know the truth and are hostile to anything else.
  - 3y ago
- croes 3y ago
  The reasons are clearly stated in the article >It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    I didn't say they didn't provide reasoning, I said that their reasoning feels icky to me. Essentially, the jury's decision says that no harm was done but that Steyn's motives for speech were reason enough for him to be punished regardless of the actual outcome of that speech. To me that's a very scary result.
    - croes 3y ago
      If I try to run you over with my car but I miss, then all is ok? Just because they failed in harming him doesn't make it harmless.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        In the US, speech has higher protections than other malfeasance. You cannot legally be punished for defamation if your words caused no harm, regardless of your intent.
        mrguyorama 3y ago
        But that doesn't mean you can't be held responsible and civilly liable, which is what punitive damages are. Civil court has a "lower" standard of evidence because it can't take your rights away, not because it can't find you at fault for something and levy a "don't freaking do that" fine against you.
        lolinder 3y ago
        As I've replied elsewhere, it's not a question of the existence of the punitive damages, it's a question of ratio. 4:1 is a typical ratio, 1m:1 is completely unheard of. You have to actually have damaged someone to have punitive damages levied for what you did, and by setting $1 as the actual damages the jury acknowledges no harm was done and therefore cannot levy substantial punitive damages.
- saveferris 3y ago
  So, I think you are correct. The jury messed up, wasn't explained to properly, etc. There are thresholds on how much punitive damages can be awarded and they are some multiple of the other damages...this one is more than that. The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.” So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did. That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.
- astura 3y ago
  >levy an enormous punitive fine for... reasons. Do you not know what the word punitive means? Punitive damages are meant to be a punishment as well as to deter others from similar behavior. They are totally normal and not meant to make the plaintiff whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages > Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.[1] Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award
  - lolinder 3y ago
    My concern isn't punitive damages in the abstract, its the 1m:1 ratio of punitive damages to actual damages. From that same Wikipedia article: > In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional. There was an exception made for a 526:1 ratio because the case was especially egregious, but this ratio is 1901 times larger than the one in that Supreme Court case.
    - mcmcmc 3y ago
      Oh wow. That's very important context. The current SCOTUS would love to get their hands on a case that lets them give their friends more protection.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  I agree with your general argument that the ruling is somewhat self-contradictory. At the same time, I don't fault them for that verdict. Nobody deserves to be compared to child molesters like that. That's extreme bad faith at best and deliberate character assassination at worst. He clearly suffered a moral injury.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  I read somewhere that it’s unconstitutional for overly high punitive damages in libel/slander cases. Anything above single digit ratio is ($10 punitive for $1 damages) questionable. Not sure if that applies here.
- njarboe 3y ago
  There is a split in how people view the justice system should work. One thinks the laws should apply to everyone equally and the justice system is there to enforce the law. The other is that life is unfair and the justice system can be used to help fix that imbalance. We get a mix of the two in reality with the same word used to describe both. Things are, of course, more complicated, but here is a short overview of the concept[1]. [1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html
- cameldrv 3y ago
  To me the concept of punitive damages is very suspect. Civil cases are supposed to have a lower burden of proof because they’re just compensation, not punishment, but then they throw in punitive damages. Maybe there should be a separate verdict for punitive damages with a beyond reasonable doubt standard.
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  > the jury was persuaded that Steyn was subjectively a bad person This seems to be par for the course for the jury system, which is why we have an appeals process run by much, much more objective people, fortunately. At least so far.
  - yellow_postit 3y ago
    Which is only accessible for those with sufficient wealth and time
purpleblue 3y ago
I'm a classic Liberal, but I've never been convinced by the man-made climate change argument. I've always been much, much more concerned about pollution and chemicals in our environment, but that seems to never be addressed. I believe so strongly in protecting the environment that if I had the power, I would invoke anti-constitutional laws that would force chemical company CEOs to live within 1 mile of their worst factories such that those chemicals would be cleaned up immediately. However, I have many questions about the climate change theory but every time I ask climate change enthusiasts, I get branded as a climate-change-denier or anti-environmental which makes me even more convinced that this is more of a religious debate than a scientific debate. 1) We know that the Earth was much warmer during the Great Warming Period. We also know that the Earth was much colder during the Ice Age. How do we know that right now it's because of CO2 and not because of some process by the planet? 2) As far as I can tell, the theory now is that the changing climate is evidence that the climate-change-via-CO2 theory is correct. I've heard people say that both warmer weather and colder weather are both evidence that the climate-change theory is right. It appears to me that ANY change is evidence that their theory is correct. But they can't have it both ways. In the scientific method, you make a prediction based on your theory and if your prediction doesn't come true then it means your theory is wrong. It appears that ANY CHANGE will validate their thesis, which is absurd, because the only outcome that will invalidate their thesis is NOTHING changes, which we already know is impossible. The Earth is not static and neither is its climate. 3) California had a 10 year drought (that was mostly exacerbated by pumping groundwater for farms but that's another issue entirely). Everyone was calling it "the new normal" but all it took was one good winter and all the reservoirs were filled again to above average levels. Droughts have happened before in California, but people were pointing to it as evidence that human-caused-climate-change was real. No one is talking about how it wasn't evidence at all.
- juujian 3y ago
  It's simple physics. You put gases into a glass tube and you test the heat retention. Earth's energy economy is determined by how much energy enters the earth in the form of sunrays and how much energy is lost due to infrared radiation. Climate gases are like a blanket that retains the heat, i.e., infrared radiation. There are some fun practical experiments to be found: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075 . Some you could realistically try at home. The first research papers on that are literally 150 years old. Those are actually interesting to look at, too. Great hand-drawn diagrams of their lab equipment. An issue is that there are paid trolls that go around posting blanket doubt on climate change, so it's always difficult to tell whom to engage with and when it is better not to provide a stage.
oatmeal1 3y ago
> This is a classic case of just how factually, scientifically, and morally bankrupt the money-backed climate denialism movement is. Here was a huge dustup, lots of sizzle, tons and tons of examination, and the end result: it all held up! Flamewar comment. The verdict of one jury (who very likely already made up their mind about climate change before the trial started) finding a single publication liable for defamation of one author on the _preponderance of the evidence_ bears very little bearing on the overall "climate denialism" debate.
- epistasis 3y ago
  You must be new to this, because denialist outrage over the "hockey stick" has been the core, or quite honestly the only, numerically base objection that I have experienced. And despite all this effort, quibbles around minor changes of statistical methods, in the end the hockey stick plot has been vindicated. And then impugned and vindicated again. This defamation case is a cap on the whole sad saga, but it is completely representative of the whole thing. Denialism has no factual or scientific basis, and the defamation suit shows just how immoral the paid-for denialists are.
  - oatmeal1 3y ago
    > You must be new to this, because denialist outrage over the "hockey stick" has been the core, or quite honestly the only, numerically base objection that I have experienced. Perhaps you are the new one?
mondocat 3y ago
> Really, you couldn't find any bad analysis to go after instead? You're missing the point though. They're not looking for bad science, they're politically opposed to this particular outcome.

lolinder 3y ago

It's actually a very weird verdict that makes me (far from a climate skeptic) feel very icky. Whether or not you like Steyn, he makes a valid point here: > “We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,” Steyn said on Thursday through his manager. “And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages.” The jury essentially acknowledged that there was no actual damage, but then proceeded to levy an enormous punitive fine for... reasons. That feels less like the jury was persuaded by hard evidence that Mann was in the right and more that the jury was persuaded that Steyn was subjectively a bad person who needed punishing, which is a weird outcome.

epistasis 3y ago
Edit: not stated at all in this, but which my main point, is that the mistake was that the jury messed up on the compensatory damages, not that the punitive damages are wrong. Coffee is still kicking in... Ok, so active harassment of a person, by a think tank, perpetuating lies and making comparisons to pedophilia is "no damages"? This spurred on harassment including hacking of email contents. What is possibly "icky" about a defamation result, other than the jury didn't find higher compensatory damages? If it's OK in our society for individuals to be attacked with lies like this, with money undirected through think tanks, are you OK with your professional life and personal life being intruded in this way with lies? Really?
- listless 3y ago
  I think this verdict is both good and bad. We've been dragging people through the mud over nothing now for a while and celebrating it. Society is sick. It needs to stop. At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far.
  - wolrah 3y ago
    > At the same time, I worry about a "chilling" effect on anyone who questions "the science". In what way? This has nothing to do with disagreement, it's about defamation. Claiming that a researcher was intentionally and fraudulently manipulating data is an entirely different ballpark from disagreeing with their methods or conclusions. The various groups who have decided as a matter of dogma that their pet theory is correct therefore all of science must be a conspiracy to cover up the truth will of course present things as if this verdict threatens any dissent, but that's simply nonsense. > Whether you like them or not, we need people who question climate science. We need people who question vaccines. Yes, they are annoying and in this case they went way, way too far. We need people who question science *in good faith*. People who disagree because they have an alternative that also fits the known facts, or because they see valid weaknesses in the methods used to come to the conclusion. Scientific progress is built on questioning things. We do not need people like the defendants in this case who have decided that climate change is an evil liberal conspiracy to empower governments. We do not need people like Jenny McCarthy, RFK Jr., etc. who have decided that all the different often entirely unrelated kinds of vaccines in the world are somehow part of the same conspiracy to do...something. These people are not adding to the discussion, they're not contributing to progress, they're at best getting in the way and in a lot of cases trying their hardest to push things back. I could go on and on. Creationists, flat-earthers, moon landing deniers, etc. will all scream about how the scientific establishment is silencing them for questioning things, but the reality is they're just wrong, annoying, and deserve no credit for anything because they're not doing it in good faith. They're not trying to find the truth, they've decided they know the truth and are hostile to anything else.
- 3y ago
croes 3y ago
The reasons are clearly stated in the article >It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.
- lolinder 3y ago
  I didn't say they didn't provide reasoning, I said that their reasoning feels icky to me. Essentially, the jury's decision says that no harm was done but that Steyn's motives for speech were reason enough for him to be punished regardless of the actual outcome of that speech. To me that's a very scary result.
  - croes 3y ago
    If I try to run you over with my car but I miss, then all is ok? Just because they failed in harming him doesn't make it harmless.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      In the US, speech has higher protections than other malfeasance. You cannot legally be punished for defamation if your words caused no harm, regardless of your intent.
      - mrguyorama 3y ago
        But that doesn't mean you can't be held responsible and civilly liable, which is what punitive damages are. Civil court has a "lower" standard of evidence because it can't take your rights away, not because it can't find you at fault for something and levy a "don't freaking do that" fine against you.
        lolinder 3y ago
        As I've replied elsewhere, it's not a question of the existence of the punitive damages, it's a question of ratio. 4:1 is a typical ratio, 1m:1 is completely unheard of. You have to actually have damaged someone to have punitive damages levied for what you did, and by setting $1 as the actual damages the jury acknowledges no harm was done and therefore cannot levy substantial punitive damages.
saveferris 3y ago
So, I think you are correct. The jury messed up, wasn't explained to properly, etc. There are thresholds on how much punitive damages can be awarded and they are some multiple of the other damages...this one is more than that. The reasons were...."....after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.” So, the jury found that they made statements that were willfully intended to harm someone - they were deliberate to inflict harm. They found that the actual harm wasn't much in monetary terms but decided to levy a large punitive award to signal to others not to do this and punish the two that did. That makes sense. You have to prove actual damages, either the plaintff didn't try to or were unsuccessful...so $1 and then a larger amount to punish the behavior and deter others from doing it.
astura 3y ago
>levy an enormous punitive fine for... reasons. Do you not know what the word punitive means? Punitive damages are meant to be a punishment as well as to deter others from similar behavior. They are totally normal and not meant to make the plaintiff whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages > Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.[1] Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award
- lolinder 3y ago
  My concern isn't punitive damages in the abstract, its the 1m:1 ratio of punitive damages to actual damages. From that same Wikipedia article: > In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional. There was an exception made for a 526:1 ratio because the case was especially egregious, but this ratio is 1901 times larger than the one in that Supreme Court case.
  - mcmcmc 3y ago
    Oh wow. That's very important context. The current SCOTUS would love to get their hands on a case that lets them give their friends more protection.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
I agree with your general argument that the ruling is somewhat self-contradictory. At the same time, I don't fault them for that verdict. Nobody deserves to be compared to child molesters like that. That's extreme bad faith at best and deliberate character assassination at worst. He clearly suffered a moral injury.
pyuser583 3y ago
I read somewhere that it’s unconstitutional for overly high punitive damages in libel/slander cases. Anything above single digit ratio is ($10 punitive for $1 damages) questionable. Not sure if that applies here.
njarboe 3y ago
There is a split in how people view the justice system should work. One thinks the laws should apply to everyone equally and the justice system is there to enforce the law. The other is that life is unfair and the justice system can be used to help fix that imbalance. We get a mix of the two in reality with the same word used to describe both. Things are, of course, more complicated, but here is a short overview of the concept[1]. [1] https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html https://tsowell.com/spquestc.html
cameldrv 3y ago
To me the concept of punitive damages is very suspect. Civil cases are supposed to have a lower burden of proof because they’re just compensation, not punishment, but then they throw in punitive damages. Maybe there should be a separate verdict for punitive damages with a beyond reasonable doubt standard.
commandlinefan 3y ago
> the jury was persuaded that Steyn was subjectively a bad person This seems to be par for the course for the jury system, which is why we have an appeals process run by much, much more objective people, fortunately. At least so far.
- yellow_postit 3y ago
  Which is only accessible for those with sufficient wealth and time

purpleblue 3y ago

I'm a classic Liberal, but I've never been convinced by the man-made climate change argument. I've always been much, much more concerned about pollution and chemicals in our environment, but that seems to never be addressed. I believe so strongly in protecting the environment that if I had the power, I would invoke anti-constitutional laws that would force chemical company CEOs to live within 1 mile of their worst factories such that those chemicals would be cleaned up immediately. However, I have many questions about the climate change theory but every time I ask climate change enthusiasts, I get branded as a climate-change-denier or anti-environmental which makes me even more convinced that this is more of a religious debate than a scientific debate. 1) We know that the Earth was much warmer during the Great Warming Period. We also know that the Earth was much colder during the Ice Age. How do we know that right now it's because of CO2 and not because of some process by the planet? 2) As far as I can tell, the theory now is that the changing climate is evidence that the climate-change-via-CO2 theory is correct. I've heard people say that both warmer weather and colder weather are both evidence that the climate-change theory is right. It appears to me that ANY change is evidence that their theory is correct. But they can't have it both ways. In the scientific method, you make a prediction based on your theory and if your prediction doesn't come true then it means your theory is wrong. It appears that ANY CHANGE will validate their thesis, which is absurd, because the only outcome that will invalidate their thesis is NOTHING changes, which we already know is impossible. The Earth is not static and neither is its climate. 3) California had a 10 year drought (that was mostly exacerbated by pumping groundwater for farms but that's another issue entirely). Everyone was calling it "the new normal" but all it took was one good winter and all the reservoirs were filled again to above average levels. Droughts have happened before in California, but people were pointing to it as evidence that human-caused-climate-change was real. No one is talking about how it wasn't evidence at all.

juujian 3y ago
It's simple physics. You put gases into a glass tube and you test the heat retention. Earth's energy economy is determined by how much energy enters the earth in the form of sunrays and how much energy is lost due to infrared radiation. Climate gases are like a blanket that retains the heat, i.e., infrared radiation. There are some fun practical experiments to be found: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075 . Some you could realistically try at home. The first research papers on that are literally 150 years old. Those are actually interesting to look at, too. Great hand-drawn diagrams of their lab equipment. An issue is that there are paid trolls that go around posting blanket doubt on climate change, so it's always difficult to tell whom to engage with and when it is better not to provide a stage.

oatmeal1 3y ago

> This is a classic case of just how factually, scientifically, and morally bankrupt the money-backed climate denialism movement is. Here was a huge dustup, lots of sizzle, tons and tons of examination, and the end result: it all held up! Flamewar comment. The verdict of one jury (who very likely already made up their mind about climate change before the trial started) finding a single publication liable for defamation of one author on the _preponderance of the evidence_ bears very little bearing on the overall "climate denialism" debate.

epistasis 3y ago
You must be new to this, because denialist outrage over the "hockey stick" has been the core, or quite honestly the only, numerically base objection that I have experienced. And despite all this effort, quibbles around minor changes of statistical methods, in the end the hockey stick plot has been vindicated. And then impugned and vindicated again. This defamation case is a cap on the whole sad saga, but it is completely representative of the whole thing. Denialism has no factual or scientific basis, and the defamation suit shows just how immoral the paid-for denialists are.
- oatmeal1 3y ago
  > You must be new to this, because denialist outrage over the "hockey stick" has been the core, or quite honestly the only, numerically base objection that I have experienced. Perhaps you are the new one?

mondocat 3y ago

> Really, you couldn't find any bad analysis to go after instead? You're missing the point though. They're not looking for bad science, they're politically opposed to this particular outcome.