Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has been libeled by Dana Nuccitelli of 'Skeptical Science'

A new paper from SPPI and Christopher Monckton details how Dana Nuccitelli of Unskeptical Science has written a characteristically spiteful piece in the Guardian about MIT Professor Dr. Richard Lindzen. The Nuccitelli piece constitutes a grave libel. Britain is one up on the U.S. in allowing anyone – even a public figure – to sue for libel, especially where, as here, he is libeled in his profession. That typically triples the damages. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here are Nuccitelli’s allegations, in bold and in order of appearance, followed in each instance by the truth.

monckton_libeled.png
[Illustrations, footnotes and references available in PDF version]

8 comments:

  1. Meh. Most of it looks like disagreement over scientific issues, which is fair game. Granted that Nucettelli is, in so far as his personal conduct, one of the least professional "scientists" I know, but I didn't see a lot of libelous remarks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely disagree.

      As Monckton says,

      At many points, Nuccitelli has flagrantly misrepresented the scientific position with intent to
      harm Professor Lindzen’s reputation, and at some point it can be shown that he knew the truth but chose to suppress or misstate it. At many other points, he has presented the science as though it were settled when in fact Professor Lindzen’s position remains undisproved, even though some may disagree with it. And Nuccitelli’s attempt to smear him by falsely accusing him of repudiating the link between lung cancer and smoking was calculated still further to damage his reputation, at the point of his retirement, by suggesting – incorrectly – an entire disregard of the scientific method on his part.

      Delete
    2. Scooter is not even a 'scientist' !

      Delete
  2. When can we hold Lindzen accountable for all of his lies, slanders and libels?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By contrast, Dr Lindzen mentioned a desire at the bottom of this article http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/02/industry-influence to go after one of his biggest accusers: "When Gelbspan published his piece, I checked into whether I should sue for libel ... I quickly discovered that it would cost more than I could afford."

      Li'l hint to the folks on the Gore side, efforts to accuse skeptic scientists of being industry shill liars has every potential of backfiring in an epic manner...............

      Delete
    2. 'Citizenschallenge' seems to lost for truth ... typical lefty, mouth off, run and hide.

      Delete
  3. I support Richard Lindzen's action here. For years supporters of AGW theory have regularly submitted similar articles to published newspapers, blogs and other web sites without any form of retribution being made to them. Mr Nuccitelli has been guilty of doing this on several occasions in the past and perhaps a healthy dose "professional curtesy" enforced by the courts will be a timely reminder to both sides of the debate that slanderous/libelous comments will be treated as such and not just overlooked.

    ReplyDelete