I do not really follow climate change debates. Certainly not as closely as I follow creationism. So I didn't know that Michael Mann had sued some journalist until I read about it at Popehat. I say "some journalist" not as belittlement, but because I really hadn't heard of Mark Steyn until now, and if you follow those two links you'll know about as much of him as I do.
As a legal issue, I have no expertise beyond an opinion that libel lawsuits are a club to be wielded by the rich. But having given the BCA a serve a while back about trying to squash opinions, I should think about how well the boot fits on the other foot.
There are some differences. Mark Steyn pretty much states that Michael Mann is a deliberate fraud. Simon Singh was much more trying to argue that chiropractors are simply wrong, and disclaimed the inference of deliberate deception. Mark Steyn is being much more offensive in bringing Jerry Sandusky's name into it. Steyn is also talking more about particular actions. It could be that climate changing is absolutely real, and Michael Mann still made everything up, although it's rather unlikely. Singh's claims were more specifically about whether chiropractory worked at all.
But ultimately, there's a lot of similarity between the two; if the science questions are settled, the articles become mere footnotes. Anyone who thinks climate change is a genuine phenomenon will conclude from Steyn's article that he's a partisan hack, just as anyone who thinks chiropractory is "good for what ails ye" will have dismissed Singh as a close-minded tool of Big Pharma.
Even if you accept the plaintiff's claim that the other guy called him a liar, it's unlikely in either case that there would be much damage to reputation; anyone who knows much about the controversy will have their own opinion already and is likely to draw much stronger conclusions about the defendant ("he's one of our guys" or "he's one of theirs").
Science should be settled by vigorous debate, not by lawsuits. The winner should be the one with the best theory, not the better lawyers. When's the last time you saw a lawyer change sides in a case because he thought the other side was right? That's not how it works, but it is how science works. If someone says something offensive enough to be libellous in a scientific debate, they should certainly be publicly called out for it; but the penalty should be apology, and the sanction should that your arguments come under closer scrutiny and more scepticism.
I have more sympathy for Mann than for the BCA. Steyn has been clearly more offensive (and I think Mann is scientifically right and the BCA wrong, so there's a tribal element there no doubt). But Mann should not be suing Steyn and if he wins he will set a bad precedent. (Continue a line of bad precedents is probably more accurate, but still). Suing makes him look like he doesn't have a good scientific argument.
The weather is going to make people like Steyn look like idiots soon enough. And if it doesn't, that's a much more important result than a piece of name-calling.
As a legal issue, I have no expertise beyond an opinion that libel lawsuits are a club to be wielded by the rich. But having given the BCA a serve a while back about trying to squash opinions, I should think about how well the boot fits on the other foot.
There are some differences. Mark Steyn pretty much states that Michael Mann is a deliberate fraud. Simon Singh was much more trying to argue that chiropractors are simply wrong, and disclaimed the inference of deliberate deception. Mark Steyn is being much more offensive in bringing Jerry Sandusky's name into it. Steyn is also talking more about particular actions. It could be that climate changing is absolutely real, and Michael Mann still made everything up, although it's rather unlikely. Singh's claims were more specifically about whether chiropractory worked at all.
But ultimately, there's a lot of similarity between the two; if the science questions are settled, the articles become mere footnotes. Anyone who thinks climate change is a genuine phenomenon will conclude from Steyn's article that he's a partisan hack, just as anyone who thinks chiropractory is "good for what ails ye" will have dismissed Singh as a close-minded tool of Big Pharma.
Even if you accept the plaintiff's claim that the other guy called him a liar, it's unlikely in either case that there would be much damage to reputation; anyone who knows much about the controversy will have their own opinion already and is likely to draw much stronger conclusions about the defendant ("he's one of our guys" or "he's one of theirs").
Science should be settled by vigorous debate, not by lawsuits. The winner should be the one with the best theory, not the better lawyers. When's the last time you saw a lawyer change sides in a case because he thought the other side was right? That's not how it works, but it is how science works. If someone says something offensive enough to be libellous in a scientific debate, they should certainly be publicly called out for it; but the penalty should be apology, and the sanction should that your arguments come under closer scrutiny and more scepticism.
I have more sympathy for Mann than for the BCA. Steyn has been clearly more offensive (and I think Mann is scientifically right and the BCA wrong, so there's a tribal element there no doubt). But Mann should not be suing Steyn and if he wins he will set a bad precedent. (Continue a line of bad precedents is probably more accurate, but still). Suing makes him look like he doesn't have a good scientific argument.
The weather is going to make people like Steyn look like idiots soon enough. And if it doesn't, that's a much more important result than a piece of name-calling.
No comments:
Post a Comment