tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8213924504030963870..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Creationist and anti-vaxxer Galileos - step this waySouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20310428078626743092016-03-25T23:54:59.510+11:002016-03-25T23:54:59.510+11:00Well, Rivkin and Grossman invoke the memory of Gal...Well, Rivkin and Grossman invoke the memory of Galileo Galilei---ergo they are nutters. It's an almost perfect test similar to seeing the word <i>quantum</i> in an alternative (i.e. quack) medical claim. I may be misreading them but it would appear that what they want to defend is the “right” of large corporations such as Exxon to lie to their shareholders. <br /><br />Still a number of writers actually seem to know something about the Galileo story and some even seem to get most of it right. I'm impressed.<br /><br />On the other hand some are not quite as accurate.<br /><br />GTL<br /><br /><i>The Copernican theory had wide acceptance at the time among scientists due to the development of the telescope, but was not openly admitted due to fears of being accused of heresy.</i><br /><br />No the Copernican theory was one of several competing theories and the existing observations at the time of Copernicus and the time of Galileo were not accurate enough to decide the issue on the side of Copernicus. A good case could be made for Copernicus but an apparently equally good case could be made for a earth-centric theory. And of course, Galileo had, among other problems, the tiresome detail that his actual theory did not work. <br /><br />GTL<br /><br /><i>Copernicus lived in Poland hundreds of years earlier.</i><br /><br /> Nicolaus Copernicus<br />1473--1543<br /><br />Galileo Galilei<br /><br />1564--1642<br />GLT's time sense seems a bit off and whether Copernicus lived in Poland is open to argument though I don't think that there is any dispute that where he lived was subject to the Polish crown. jrkrideauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04869979887929067657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12274050031078444972016-03-25T13:09:46.459+11:002016-03-25T13:09:46.459+11:00Yes, indeed, it's no scientific dispute ...
bu...Yes, indeed, it's no scientific dispute ...<br />but it really important that sincere belief in something wrong is not a shield against a legitimate libel claim, if "reckless disregard for the truth" can be shown ... and this is relevant to the Mann libel cases.<br /><br />Of course, this whole Rivkin/Grosasman thing is bogus, like many other things in the WSJ's Opinion sections.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47993827457016928382016-03-25T11:17:44.698+11:002016-03-25T11:17:44.698+11:00Okay, but also does not sounds like a scientific d...Okay, but also does not sounds like a scientific dispute. ;-) No scientist fears this lawsuit. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80570852569875936782016-03-25T11:08:43.291+11:002016-03-25T11:08:43.291+11:00I think this is more likely to be Rivkin trying to...I think this is more likely to be Rivkin trying to suck-up to the oil industry. Like Sou, I doubt they'd want the help of an acquisitions lawyer in libel cases or, for that matter, criminal or divorce proceedings.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-70865894448993706842016-03-25T09:13:01.621+11:002016-03-25T09:13:01.621+11:00Another conduit for fossil fuel industry money to ...Another conduit for fossil fuel industry money to be dispersed by. But it is nice to see the organisers of climate change denial getting so concerned about what, if there is any justice, should be coming their way (a Climate Nuremberg) that this one is intended to cover their legal costs.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65453969034370996762016-03-25T08:54:53.161+11:002016-03-25T08:54:53.161+11:00gee so the roots are funded by dirty oilmen... How...gee so the roots are funded by dirty oilmen... How VERY *surprising*Redreamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08945189047249283578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42951012594854299572016-03-25T08:40:42.385+11:002016-03-25T08:40:42.385+11:00if you clivk on the Facebook logo at the website, ...if you clivk on the Facebook logo at the website, it links to Rivkin's Facebook page. Rivkin works for BakerHostetler. BakerHostetler BakerHostetler was ranked among the top 10 U.S. law firms for merger and acquisition deals in the oil, gas and oilfield service industries.winnebagohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06232060232211910395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74248563707968124612016-03-25T07:54:18.485+11:002016-03-25T07:54:18.485+11:00"For something to be libel you have to say so..."For something to be libel you have to say something you know to be wrong."<br /><br />VV: that's not quite strong enough. "reckless disregard of the truth" can be enough. Some people are absolutely sure of wrong things.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69275708712192078452016-03-25T07:23:57.911+11:002016-03-25T07:23:57.911+11:00That WUWT post is rightly in the category misinfor...That WUWT post is rightly in the category misinformation. <br /><br />People who are not scientists may mistakenly take this stupid claim seriously: "<i>Mr. Mann’s lawsuit divided climate scientists—many of whom recognized that it threatened vital scientific debate</i>".<br /><br />No scientist fears this. You do not get sued for presenting evidence in a scientific article. For something to be libel you have to say something you know to be wrong. By definition this would not be a scientific debate.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com