Similarly, climate scientist Michael Mann’s recent US case explicitly avoided comments it accepted were “rhetorical hyperbole” that “cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual.”
Essentially, the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for.
Miroslav Prýmek
in reply to Mac_CZ 🇦🇶 • •Similarly, climate scientist Michael Mann’s recent US case explicitly avoided comments it accepted were “rhetorical hyperbole” that “cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual.”
Essentially, the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-hockey-stick-graph-creator-Dr-Michael-Mann-ordered-by-a-Canadian-court-to-pay-Dr-Tim-Balls-legal-fees