Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, again (and again and again) you are forced to resort to ad hominem attacks because you have no facts or evidence supporting the position you've chosen to take. I hope you don't think anyone is impressed by such ignorant childishness.
insideclimatenews.org
Steyn and Simberg are not yet out of the fire.
Judge Scales Back Climate Scientist's Case Against Bloggers - Inside Climate News
A Washington, D.C. judge has ruled that the conservative think tank the Competitive Enterprise Institute cannot be held responsible for an outside blogger’s 2012 online attack on a prominent climate scientist. At the same time, the judge decided that a jury should decide whether the blogger...
Do you have some dependable source that says otherwise?
I also have the following from: DC Court Grants Summary Judgment for CEI In Michael Mann Defamation Suit
Today's decision was not a total loss for Mann, however, as the court denied the motion for summary judgment with respect to Simberg, who authored the original post.
Early on in the opinion the court noted that "evidence of 'personal spite, ill will or intention to injure on the part of the writer'" is generally insufficient, by itself, to support a claim of actual malice. As the court cautioned, "Some circumstances may justify reliance on evidence of ill-will, but only where the probative value of that evidence will outweigh the risk that 'such evidence will chill honestly believed speech.'" Nonetheless, the court later concluded that summary judgment should be denied because Mann offered "significant evidence that Mr. Simberg held ill-will for Plaintiff and that he was zealous in advancing his side of the climate change debate," and that such evidence could suffice to establish actual malice in front of a jury. I would not be surprised if Simberg appeals on this point.
Mann also prevailed against defendant Mark Steyn in a separate opinion denying Steyn's motion for summary judgment. This was in a separate opinion because Steyn went his own way in this litigation some time ago.
Have you got a source saying the court ruled in Steyn or Simberg's favor? If not, you're the one whose dreaming.
What post are you responding to.........?
Today's decision was not a total loss for Mann, however, as the court denied the motion for summary judgment with respect to Simberg, who authored the original post.
Not a total loss? Did he sue CEI? Did his case against CEI get tossed? LOL!
Have you got a source saying the court ruled in Steyn or Simberg's favor?
Who said the court did?
Ummm, remember, this is crick you are speaking to. crick has his own reality so real facts that don't comport with "his truth" don't apply.
Despite years of being told that defects in prior hockey stick temperature reconstructions “don’t matter” because the Hockey Stick “doesn’t “matter”, the first figure of new IPCC Summary for Policy-Makers is a Hockey Stick.
When ordinary people hear the phrase “warmest in more than 100,000 years”, very few know that Chicago was under a mile of ice for most of that period. So when Michael Mann and IPCC zealots demand that we “Make the Climate Great Again”, people need to think whether the climate was really all that “great” in the Ice Age, when there was a mile of ice over much of America.
Thread by @ClimateAudit on Thread Reader App
@ClimateAudit: despite years of being told that defects in prior hockey stick temperature reconstructions "don't matter" because the Hockey Stick "doesn't "matter", the first figure of new IPCC Summary for Policy-Ma...…threadreaderapp.com
Whatever you do, don't discuss AGW theory.Whatever you do, don't point out any of Mann's faults.
Whatever you do, don't discuss AGW theory.
At least you admit it’s a theory. I believe we had a big eared potus who said the science is settled. Proving he’s an ignoramus, or maybe just doing the bidding of his bosses.Whatever you do, don't discuss AGW theory.
Obama is so worried about a rising ocean and increasing violent storms he bought a $12M mansion on the beach.At least you admit it’s a theory. I believe we had a big eared potus who said the science is settled. Proving he’s an ignoramus, or maybe just doing the bidding of his bosses.
Obama is so worried about a rising ocean and increasing violent storms he bought a $12M mansion on the beach.
So... the conclusions of all six of the IPCC's assessment reports, and the tens of thousands of published, peer-reviewed studies on which they were based, were actually the unsupported opinion of Barack Obama? Who would have thunk it?!?!?!
Whatever you do, don't discuss AGW theory.
Are the oceans rising or not?
Don't we need to spend trillions to stop the rise of the oceans?
What's happened to you Todd?
