Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (243961)	2/5/2014 9:59:00 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Respond to of 541393

Well, it will be up to the jury to evaluate the emails. The argument of the defendant's attorney's will be, I suspect, that the emails sent don't have to be 100% accurate, in a scientific sense, on the defendant's conclusions about them (tortured and misleading?)-- just that a reasonable person could have concluded such based on some part of them. Also it will be argued by both sides that the defendant's actions did or did not show a "reckless disregard" of the truth of the matter. Since the truth of this matter (climate science) is a hotly contested issue I think the plaintiff here will have a high burden of proof to get by this defamation standard of "reckless disregard" Additionally, PSU scientists and the EPA are not exactly neutral dispassionate observers in this dispute. Having said that I myself have no factual understanding, except in a broad sense, of the actual climate science being debated or the detailed actions of the involved scientists in the alleged misleading. In other words I can't make a judgment based on the facts of the matter. It will be an interesting trial to watch though. Keep us informed of what goes on with it if you can.