I didn't realize there would be a Steynalanche following my post about the whole climate change, hockey stick, law suit thingy.
Thanks for all the nice e-mails!
Now I see that Steyn has filed a motion to dismiss.
I think that's actually a very charitable way of letting this Clinton-appointed judge off the hook, and letting her save face. Who says conservatives are meanies?
CLASSY MOVE FROM MARK STEYN AND NATIONAL REVIEW!
Again, I find the whole
But seriously, what I am interested in is human behaviour.
Remember how your parents always told you never to talk about religion, sex or politics in polite company? You know-just STAY AWAY from those topics!
LUCKILY MY PARENTS TOLD ME NO SUCH FOOLISH THING.
Those are the interesting things in the human experience. Those are the good nuggets-that little trinity of topics is the STUFF OF LIFE.
So, maybe some Americans can explain to me why they are not allowed to comment on the pedophilia sex scandal at an American university in the same blog post, or breath, or conversation or article as an academic who works at the same university? I thought free speech was-well-holy in America. But apparently not.
Sex, power, money, science, corruption, management, mismanagement. I want to hear about it all. I want to talk about it all, and read about it all.
Why can people sue each others' asses off in America and consider it a good thing to make the choice to enter into expensive, public litigation if they are offended by something-by some words or phrases? And why is offense only taken at some publications? What good could could possibly come of such public battles?
Americans-I love you, but that is just CRAZY CRAZY STUFF.
Anyway, I was doing a little back reading, and happened upon an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education. It was very interesting!
You should read the whole thing, it is called " A Culture of Evasion".
It was so explicit, and so well-written that I thought-WHAT THE HECK IS THIS DOING IN HERE?
It was ballsy and forthright. Nice style. Hmmmm.
So I read a little more, and I liked what I saw. I Googled the author and lo and behold:
This guy has got some stones! WINNING!
He seems to piss a lot of people off! WINNING!
And then, when lots of Big Climate science people got pissed off this author for the Culture of Evasion article ("Chronic Soapbox for Smears Against Climate Scientists), the editor of the Chronicle basically said "piss off".
Here's what the editor said:
"Below is the reply sent by Chronicle President and Editor-in-Chief Philip Semas to these letters:
Thank you for your message. As we clearly state on every blog post, posting on a blog does imply any endorsement of these views by The Chronicle. We publish a wide range of views in a wide range of formats, from opinion articles in print to blog posts to comments from readers. We couldn’t possible agree with or endorse all of them.
We also offer ample opportunity for readers to respond to and criticize opinion articles and blog posts (and indeed almost anything we publish). Indeed, Peter Wood’s post has, at last count, drawn 71 comments, many of which are critical of what he said about Michael Mann. Some make many of the same points you make in your message.
In other words, I think your quarrel is with Mr. Wood, not The Chronicle.
Phil Semas
President & Editor in Chief
The Chronicle of Higher Education Inc."
And, as far as I know, the Chronicle of Higher Education was not sued and I don't think this VERY ballsy Peter Wood fellow was sued. It seems like the quarrel just disappeared. I would drill further into this except that I have to bake muffins tonight and such...
The proper response to hurtful or "hateful" speech is either "piss off", or generating sufficiently convincing and influential speech to counter the "hate" and not firing up the lawyers. Everyone loses when the lawyers win-except the lawyers.
The world, and our beloved climate will be a better place to live in if we just argue it out, talk about things, debate them in person and in print, without fear of being litigated into silence.
People with hurt feelings should pay for therapists, not lawyers. Seriously-I understand shrinks are much cheaper than lawyers. However, I tend to run for the hills at the sight of either, so don't quote me on that.
Big Climate might be happy to stifle debate at this juncture, and claim hurt feelings, but human interests are fickle. Research cash flows are also.
Today Big Climate is popular and is running the show, but that might not be the case in the future. Remember Acid Rain? The Crack Babies? The hole in the Ozone? Fickle, fickle, fickle.
I also like to remind people that the toes they might step on on the way up the ladder are connected to the bodies and asses they might have to kiss on their way down. I know-nothing like a heaping serving of gratuitous advice from an exceptionally opinionated female, right -wing Jew blogger to make your day, etc...
Anyhow, this case is looking like it may go out with a whisper, not a bang and that might be the best thing for all parties.
But what do I know?
I'm clearly not that bright.
