This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
I made the mistake of trying to engage a warmist. He pointed me to this document. I only read the history section. A scientist is shocked that he was quoted wrong. He sues and wins.
All I see in this is precedent for all the trash talk that comes out of the warmist side. This judgement can truly bite the warmists. The out of context quotes were typical. They are the slippery nature of words. The simplest of statements can be turned against you no matter well you qualify the statement. The better you qualify the statement, the more likely it will be twisted. The twists done by the Financial Post were not extreme. Reading the statements made by the post and the statements made by Dr. Weaver and they can appear to be exactly the same. With the right background, you can see that they are different. But if you extend your background further you can see they are the same again.
Using the courts to get at the truth isn't a good idea.
After reading that rather tedious document, my initial conclusion was that the "National Post" newspaper had just blundered - they'd assumed that some leading Canadian climate scientist was a bit of Green activist based on rumour, and the judge had thrown out the allegations made in the set of articles.
But then I decided to Google the climate scientist's name, Andrew Weaver, and found this Wikipedia page about him:
It appears that Weaver now operates mainly as a politician, and is actually deputy leader of the Green party of British Columbia [British Columbia is a province in South West Canada, about four times bigger than the UK]. So he certainly fits the profile of being a Green activist as alleged by the National Post.
It looks to me like Canada must be a pretty good place to be a warmist, and the legal system is sympathetic to what they're doing. I don't think we have that problem in the UK - I remember that a high court judge ruled back in 2007 that Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" was riddled with errors.
I decided to have a look at a few Green blogs to get their perspective on the Weaver libel case, and found some interesting material about it in a Thinkprogess blog post:
Extract from the blog post:
"So how can scientists — or any plaintiff in a defamation case, for that matter — prove that their character has been defamed? In Weaver’s case, he pointed to the comments section of the Post’s site. In testimony to the court, he called them “crushing” — “people claimed he was a fraud; a liar; many people attacked him in phone, in shows. He did not know what to do to defend himself. All of this was based on a complete fabrication of facts,” Justice Burke wrote.
The court’s opinion even excerpted some of the comments, including this one: “Dr. Weaver is as big a hypocrite as he is a fraudster. He was front and center with his “global warming” lies and deception and should be made to repay his research monies and lose his tenure and degrees. A few centuries in jail would give him time to reflect on his part in the biggest fraud in the history of mankind. Perhaps he would settle for a 100-year sentence by giving evidence against his fellow fraudsters?”
Weaver claims he got so many negative comments that he created a “Wall of Hate” outside his office, where he posted copies of diatribes against him since 2010.
Though it doesn’t seem to have been addressed in U.S. courts yet, Weaver’s case was the first in Canada to opine on whether an online publication can be held liable for how readers react to their stories in the comments section, according to the Toronto Star. Though Justice Burke apparently accepted the Post’s argument that it removed vitriolic comments from its site, it did seem to factor into her decision to deem them defamatory. The Post had argued that they did not attack Weaver’s character."
The Thinkprogress explanation is that Weaver convinced the judge he had been defamed through drawing attention to the reaction of the commenters on the online article. It looks like the judge probably doesn't understand the concept of 'trolls' - people who express aggressive views on the internet may not genuinely hold that view, they may be expressing an exaggerated mean-spirited view simply for their own amusement.
One repercussion of this libel case is that newspapers might have to moderate online comments more vigorously, or not allow comments for certain types of article.
I believe that the National Post is going to appeal against the decision.