Wow, that was quick, almost too quick in my opinion. Just a day after the corrupt Mann vs Steyn jury verdict, awarding bully boy climate scientist and all round obnoxious toad Michael Mann $1m in punitive damages against Steyn, for ‘defamation’, we get this from the Zoo Crew virologists:
Roger Pielke tells us that there were “two absolutely pivotal moments in the Mann vs. Steyn trial:
In my view, there were two absolutely pivotal moments in the trial.
One occurred when Mann was testifying and he explained that he felt that the bloggers were not just criticizing him, but they were attacking all of climate science, and he could not let that stand. As the world’s most accomplished and famous climate scientist, Mann intimated that he was simply the embodiment of all of climate science.
For the jury, this set up the notion that this trial was not really about Mann, but about attacks on all of climate science from climate deniers.
The second pivotal moment occurred when in closing arguments Mann’s lawyer asked the jury to send a message to right-wing science deniers and Trump supporters with a large punitive damage award.
The prosecution used the trial to send a message to all ‘climate deniers’ out there who might dare to question the integrity of the high priests of The Settled Science and/or the integrity of the Science itself. It worked, and now the Zoo Crew Settled Science virologists are threatening to use exactly the same lawfare tactics to silence the lab leak supporting critics of their unquestionable “spillover” Covid origin theory. So anyone casting aspersions on the character and honesty of Daszcak and his gain of function colleagues had better beware lest they end up in a DC court with jurors who will swear to uphold truth, justice and the preferred narrative.
Just like Fauci, Mann IS the Science; attacks on him are therefore attacks upon the Science. Mann himself arrogantly bragged afterwards:
This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job … whose findings might prove inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and outlets. It’s about the integrity of the science and making sure that bad actors aren’t allowed to make false and defamatory statements about scientists in their effort to advance an agenda.
So, the lesson to be learned here is, if you’re going to criticise a scientist and their work, make sure your attacks are not “scurrilous and dishonest”, but focussed, watertight and thoroughly honest. Cast no aspersions upon their character or integrity, just destroy their claims to ‘expert authority’ by the forensic examination of cold, hard facts. In a war, you adapt to the enemy’s tactics. This is a war: science vs. politicised pseudoscience and I know which side the critics of mainstream climate science and the Zoonati pandemicists are on - the right side.
An attack on all of science, that sounds about right. Science should always be under attack. It seems to me, science has always worked that way. Truly revolutionary ideas did not arise without strenuous defense of the status quo and the upstart new ideas.
Science has never been about the absolute truth. That is more appropriately pursued within the realms of religion. Science should be about the objective (repeatable) observations and synthesis of unifying concepts that allow a particular level of predictability, and above all it must be falsifiable. If either observations or concepts are challenged it must be a through the ability to falsify the original understanding.
It seems our understanding of climate science is far from complete, based on that observation, nothing should be left unchallenged, if our understanding is to have a chance to evolve towards something better. The most obvious example, and, most easily challenged, is the modelling of such a complex and chaotic system. The predictions of these models are there for everyone to see. They have not been stellar, even with the range of models that have been considered. the predictions do not even provide a good error bar of the observations. This is on top of the fact, that, the observations, are neither complete or well isolated.
Ah, this is just a bit of frustrated ranting, better presented by so many others. This type of thin skinned scientists reaction towards criticism is just so anti-science that it makes me wonder if we are headlong towards a neo-darkage. The need of settling the situation by court is so reminiscent of the inquisition during the middle ages.
The odds were stacked against Steyn. Mann was having all his legal costs paid for by some unknown benefactor(s) and a trial jury in ultra-liberal Washington DC was bound to be packed with Mann sympathisers. John O’Sullivan of PSI/TNT Radio helped his friend Dr Tim Bell to litigate successfully against Mann and thinks that Steyn went about his case the wrong way: https://principia-scientific.com/far-left-court-awards-dr-michael-mann-one-dollar-in-steyn-libel-case/.