3 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, lot
by 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 agoYou 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?