Deniers have scored a victory in Canada--well, sort of. Last week, a judge dismissed a libel suit brought against longtime climate denier Tim Ball for an article attacking climate scientist (since turned Green Party politician) Dr. Andrew Weaver. Though deniers were quick to celebrate the dismissal, the ruling wasn’t particularly great news for them, as a pair of new posts at DeSmog explain.
The judge ruled that Ball’s article (since retracted by the Canadian Free Press) didn’t damage Dr. Weaver’s reputation because the article is “poorly written and does not advance credible arguments.” He noted in his ruling that the “vague references to missing or falsified data and political manipulation, unsubstantiated and erroneous references” made by Ball weren’t enough to actually cause anyone to question Weaver’s credibility, and that Ball’s piece was “rife with errors and inaccuracies.”
Ball’s defense team admitted that his aim in writing the article was to damage Dr. Weaver’s credibility. Essentially, the judge agreed with them that no damage was done because Ball is too unbelievable and his argument too weak for anyone to take seriously.
And as it turns out, the judge was likely right, according to an open-access study published in PLOS One a couple weeks ago. A team of researchers examined how various claims about a study and its scientists influence public perception, comparing statements specific to the study and empirical evidence to allegations of past misconduct by the study author, descriptions of a conflict of interest, and broader insults about the researcher’s education and general incompetence.
Basically, they were testing whether “vague references” like Ball’s were as effective in influencing opinion as specific criticisms about conduct or conflict. For example, instead of just saying Ball’s work is shoddy, we’ll point out how he has worked with fossil-fuel industry groups to attack the credibility of climate science. Or instead of suggesting his degrees aren’t from Ivy League schools, we’ll point out that his writings are regularly debunked for a distinct lack of logic and reliance on kooky conspiracy theories.
The research in PLOS One found that examples of misconduct, either regarding the study at hand or past behavior, are the most effective at eroding support for a scientist. Specific criticisms of how the study handles empirical evidence, and a scientist’s conflicts of interest were only slightly less compelling. Saying a study’s author attended a non-elite university or calling them a “sloppy” researcher, however, barely moved the needle.
Meaning that not only do deniers, by virtue of the “vague references,” regularly use the weakest of attacks, but even if they didn’t, they’re too incompetent to libel.
As one scientist (who we totally didn’t just make up for sake of this joke) said, “I didn’t think deniers could get any more pitiful, ‘til I saw this case, now I’m a beWeaver!”
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories:
Making America Toxic Again | Scott Pruitt’s job is to protect the environment. Unfortunately, God has other plans for him.