Climate scientist defamed by National Post

[jacee]

climate-scientist-andrew-weaver-wins-defamation-case-against-national-post/

Interesting precedent.

[Michael Hardner]

"While certainly entitled to express those views, in this case as part of that expression, they deliberately created a negative impression of Dr. Weaver," she wrote.

The Post had argued that the articles were not defamatory, because they did not attack Weaver's character, and that the statements are protected by the fair comment defence.

It's hard to make an assessment of this without the original quote, and I couldn't find it. Anybody else ?

[jacee]

It's hard to make an assessment of this without the original quote, and I couldn't find it. Anybody else ?

It's been removed as per ruling.

.

[Michael Hardner]

It's been removed as per ruling.

.

Some other quote of it, perhaps hosted in the US ?

[jacee]

They had to pull the articles too.

Here's the gist:

http://www.straight.com/news/822386/green-mla-andrew-weaver-wins-libel-case-against-national-post-terence-corcoran-and-others

Justice Emily Burke ordered the National Post, Fisher, Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, and Kevin Libin to pay Weaver $50,000 after finding that the defamation was "serious" and that the "factual foundation to the four articles was distorted or false"."It offended Dr. Weavers character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction," Burke wrote in her ruling. "The libel was widely published by at least one high profile journalist and two others."

...

In brief, Dr. Weaver says the words used in the various publications state or contain innuendos or inferences that he attempted to divert public attention from a scandal involving 'Climategate' and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the 'IPCC') by fabricating stories about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry with respect to the break-ins at his office; that he is untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent; and that he distorts and conceals scientific data to promote a public agenda and receive government funding," Burke wrote.

Edited February 8, 2015 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for the leg work, jacee...

[TimG]

In brief, Dr. Weaver says the words used in the various publications state or contain innuendos or inferences that he attempted to divert public attention from a scandal involving 'Climategate' and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the 'IPCC') by fabricating stories about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry with respect to the break-ins at his office;

The trouble is this is most likely true because Weaver is an alarmist loon that constantly peddles conspiracy theories. To this day there is no evidence that the break in was anything other than a random event and it was perfectly reasonable to claim that he was making stuff up.

The trouble here is truth is not a defense in Canadian libel law and all that needs to be shown is "harm". For this reason one must never assume that the judge believed that the statements were wrong. Only that the judge believe harm was caused.

Edited February 8, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

The trouble is this is most likely true because Weaver is an alarmist loon that constantly peddles conspiracy theories. To this day there is no evidence that the break in was anything other than a random event and it was perfectly reasonable to claim that he was making stuff up.

The trouble here is truth is not a defense in Canadian libel law and all that needs to be shown is "harm". For this reason one must never assume that the judge believed that the statements were wrong. Only that the judge believe harm was caused.

This is what the judge found:

" ... the factual foundation to the four articles was distorted or false".

It appears that the media couldn't substantiate what you claim Weaver said:

" "I initiated the lawsuit in 2010 after the National Post refused to retract a number of articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held," Weaver wrote on his personal Facebook page."

Edited February 8, 2015 by jacee

[TimG]

" ... the factual foundation to the four articles was distorted or false".

That says the judge found that there were no facts to support the allegations.

It does NOT say the judge felt the allegations were false.

This is a question of onus. If I claim you are a liar and I have no proof then I can be found to have defamed you even if you actually are lying. i.e. the onus is not on the person suing to prove that the statements are lies but on the defendant to show that they are true. And when there is simply no evidence one way or the other Canadian law sides with the complainant. That appears to be what happened in this case.

Edited February 8, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

That says the judge found that there were no facts to support the allegations.

It does NOT say the judge felt the allegations were false.

This is a question of onus. If I claim you are a liar and I have no proof then I can be found to have defamed you even if you actually are lying. i.e. the onus is not on the person suing to prove that the statements are lies but on the defendant to show that they are true. And when there is simply no evidence one way or the other Canadian law sides with the complainant. That appears to be what happened in this case.

"distorted or false"

They couldn't prove he blamed the oil industry.

He says he never made such statements.

.

[TimG]

They couldn't prove he blamed the oil industry.

He was quoted in the Victoria Paper with his picture at the time of the incident. Proving he made the claim was easy to do. Proving that that he was making it up to divert attention away from the leaked CRU emails was impossible even though anyone who looks at the facts can only conclude that he was likely doing exactly that.

Edit: to be fair: there are numerous factual inaccuracies in the articles themselves that I know are wrong (they confused Micheal Mann with Weaver for example). These inaccuracies are probably the primary reason for the judgement. But that does not mean that everything the Weaver claimed is true.

Edited February 8, 2015 by TimG

[jacee]

He was quoted in the Victoria Paper with his picture at the time of the incident. Proving he made the claim was easy to do.

Link?

Proving that that he was making it up to divert attention away from the leaked CRU emails was impossible even though anyone who looks at the facts can only conclude that he was likely doing exactly that.

Edit: to be fair: there are numerous factual inaccuracies in the articles themselves that I know are wrong (they confused Micheal Mann with Weaver for example). These inaccuracies are probably the primary reason for the judgement. But that does not mean that everything the Weaver claimed is true.

" statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held,"

Looks like the National Post couldn't substantiate their claims sufficiently to suit the judge.

You could look up the ruling to see why. That would be better than making further defamatory statements.

.

Edited February 8, 2015 by jacee

[TimG]

Link?

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/dec/06/break-in-targets-climate-scientist

Attempts have been made to break into the offices of one of Canada's leading climate scientists, it was revealed yesterday. The victim was Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and a key contributor to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In one incident, an old computer was stolen and papers were disturbed.

In addition, individuals have attempted to impersonate technicians in a bid to access data from his office, said Weaver. The attempted breaches, on top of the hacking of files from British climate researcher Phil Jones, have heightened fears that climate-change deniers are mounting a campaign to discredit the work of leading meteorologists before the start of the Copenhagen climate summit tomorrow.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can … take out of context," said Weaver. The prospect of more break-ins and hacking has forced researchers to step up computer security.

Why didn't Weaver sue the Guardian?

Weaver peddled baseless conspiracy theories. That part is not in doubt. But, as I said, the NP did not do a good job of fact checking on some other points.

[Bob Macadoo]

That says the judge found that there were no facts to support the allegations.It does NOT say the judge felt the allegations were false.This is a question of onus. If I claim you are a liar and I have no proof then I can be found to have defamed you even if you actually are lying. i.e. the onus is not on the person suing to prove that the statements are lies but on the defendant to show that they are true. And when there is simply no evidence one way or the other Canadian law sides with the complainant. That appears to be what happened in this case.

They didn't call him a liar, they attributed statements to him they couldn't prove he said. It's actually basic journalism. They didn't defame him by opinionating on his statements without facts.....they made up his statements......different ballpark.

[eyeball]

They behaved like alarmist loons in other words.