Le harcèlement par ces fanatiques :

[Jacques]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climatology-expert-threatened-for-climate-change-views.html

Les pro-réchauffement anthropique sont allés juqu'à
menacer des scientifiques qui n'étaient pas de leur avis. Auparavant, ils
se contentaient de les discréditer et de les museler par tous les moyens
possibles. Ils n'aiment pas la vérité scientifique et ne veulent en
entendre que ce qui conforte leurs lubies.

Résumé : le professeur Tim Ball, qui rejette l'hystérie actuelle autour
du réchauffement climatique a été injurié, maltraité et menacé en raison
de ses opinion.

MICHAEL COREN,
QMI Agency
Sunday, February 14th, 2010

Recently I interviewed professor Tim Ball on my TV show. Ball is a highly
qualified and experienced academic with an expertise in historical
climatology who rejects most of the current hysteria around climate
change and global warming.

He is a modest, gentle man who, in spite of his enormous work in the
field and the chairing of inquiries and commissions into environmental
causes, is now libelled, slandered, abused and threatened for his
opinions.

“If people knew just how deep and dark this conspiracy is — yes,
conspiracy — they’d be amazed,” he explains. “More and more academics are
standing up to refute climate-change theories, but it’s still dangerous
to do so. It can mean the end of a career, the targeting of someone by
well-organized fanatics.”

I rather doubted this man who is arguably Canada’s leading scientific
opponent of climate-change fundamentalism until the e-mails poured in
after his television appearance. People wrote that he was in the pay of
big oil, was a simple high-school geography teacher, was insane and
worse. In fact, he is a university academic with impressive graduate
degrees and doctorates and, unlike so many global warming advocates, is
not in the pay of anybody.

Because he took some of his degrees under a university department of
geography, an Internet mythology has developed around him and people who
cannot spell let alone define scientific concepts try to silence him
whenever he speaks.

[Jacques]

Ces imposteurs infoutus de vivre sans une guerre civile délirante :

http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2011/03/04/la-terre-serait-elle-plate-a-l-institut-de-france_1487945_3232.html

[Jacques]

Stefan Rahmstorf, inquisiteur IPCC en Allemagne, contre une journaliste, Irene Meischner : elle avait osé enquêter et écrire sur les nombreuses "erreurs" (traduire : fraudes) du rapport IPCC de 2007.
Le New York Times a fait dans le journalisme de meute.
En justice devant les tribunaux de la RFA, Irène Meischner a gagné.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/12/journalist-fights-back-and-wins.html
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,796623,00.html

01 December 2011
A Journalist Fights Back and Wins
In Germany, there is news today (here) about a prominent climate scientist who earlier this year was convicted of defaming a journalist, Irene Meichsner.

The case (described in detail in English here) has to do with Meichsner's reporting of errors in the IPCC 2007 report in early 2010 in the Frankfurter Rundschau. The scientist, Stefan Rahmstorf (known in the US as a blogger at Real Climate and whom I've occasionally sparred with) is a German government advisor who strongly attacked Meichsner for her coverage of the IPCC. His attacks prompted the Frankfurter Rundschau to subsequently correct Meichsner's reporting, apparently based solely on Rahmstorf's say so, such was his authority.

Meichsnner, believing that she had done no wrong, sued. The Cologne court then decided in her favor, concluding that Rahmstorf's attacks were unsupported by evidence and even libelous.

Interestingly, in the US, Rahmstorf's efforts to take down the journalist were uncritically celebrated by no less than the New York Times, which helps to illustrate both a bandwagon effect in coverage of climate by journalists who see themselves on the "same side" as the scientists and also the extensive deference than scientists are granted by the media. Given the court outcome, I wonder if the NYT will be correcting its earlier coverage?

A German magazine on science journalism provides a detailed discussion of the case and its significance (translated from German) and summarizes this episode as follows:

    This particular case deserves special attention first of all because a freelance journalist has successfully defended herself against the malice a renowned scientist poured on her. It may motivate other journalists not to put up with absolutely everything in disputes over the quality of their work but to defend themselves, even if this involves an enormous effort. . .

    The malice, which Rahmstorf shows for the author of the article, seems like personal defamation that has no place in public disputes. Not even – or, should I say, especially not - when it comes to a subject as important as climate change. Much of Rahmstorf's way of behaving in this case is reminiscent of what he has always argued against so eloquently: the facts are polished until they support a predetermined interpretation. This case is only superficially about facts that may be true or false. Rather, it is about the importance which is assigned to specific facts in the reporting on climate change. These interpretations are not sacrosanct. There is no one who can or would want to deny Stefan Rahmstorf and other climate scientists the right to criticise interpretations they consider inappropriate and to counter them with others. But anyone who, like Rahmstorf, fails to distinguish carefully between facts and interpretation and applies the one-dimensional criterion of right and wrong to both, enters the arena of a public battle of opinions. Disguised as a scientific expert, he is really a political agitator. He does not fight against false factual claims, but against unpopular interpretations, and in this case he also employs unfair means, as the verdict of the Cologne court documented. The fact that Rahmstorf has now changed or entirely removed certain passages from his blog post of 26 April 2010 without informing his readers about it, all fits into the picture.

    The moral of the story is not very encouraging - because Rahmstorf has had considerable success. The move that led to the article being withdrawn by the FR made it onto the front page of the New York Times, as Rahmstorf, obviously rather gratified, tells his readers in his blog of 25 May. His initiative is mentioned in the New York Times as one of several successful attempts by climate researchers to publicly correct grossly distorted or false reports. In some cases this may be justified. In this particular case, it is nothing less than a demonstration of how to try and suppress unwelcome interpretations using an authoritarian concept of truth and with the help of a media conspiracy theory based solely on isolated cases and thus basically void of empirical substance.

I have seen from the inside many efforts by a small set of prominent climate scientists to bully and suppress -- behaviors which continue even after the release of the UEA emails. Such behavior is seemingly emboldened by the protective shield that many in the media hold up to protect climate scientists from criticism, no matter how legitimate.

If nothing else, the German court case should be taken as a warning by scientists in any field that efforts to slander opponents sometimes backfires. Perhaps some journalists might see virtue in one of their own protecting her reputation from an illegitimate attack.

What of Irene Meichsner?

    Irene Meichsner – who had to fight her legal battle for her reputation on her own - has had enough of climate issues for the time being. She no longer writes about this subject.

I know exactly how she feels.
Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 12/01/2011 12:26:00 PM

Telles sont leurs moeurs de gangsters quasiment d'état, à ces militants du RCA.