Climatologist takes National Post to court -

Climatologist takes National Post to court

Says newspaper portrayed him as corrupt scientist


A Canadian climate scientist is suing the National Post for defamation. Andrew Weaver, a professor at University of Victoria and former member of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says articles published in the newspaper between 2009-2010 portray him as corrupt. “These articles put him in a false light,” Weaver’s lawyer explains. “Attributing to [Weaver] views that he says he never held and accusing him of conduct that he says never occurred.” Weaver’s statement of claim, filed to the B.C. Supreme Court, demands that the contentious articles be taken down from the Post‘s website. The National Post has not yet filed a statement of defense.

CBC News

Filed under:

Climatologist takes National Post to court

  1. The media shouldn't be muzzled to cover all aspects of this issue. Andrew Weaver is going to have a tough time proving there is any real libel here. The reports I've read make the case look pretty flimsy. He seems most offended by the comments bloggers have made. Bloggers aren't the NP. Last time I checked, Canadians were allowed a certain amount of freedom of speech.

  2. Our Freedom of Speech does not allow for defamation, sedition, or inciting violence against ethnic groups.

    • Is Andrew Weaver an 'ethnic group'? Are we going to proclaim "climate change" a religion?

      I don't agree with your definition, by the way. We have a Federal party that is involved everyday in sedition (the Bloc).

      I do, however, acknowledge that intentional defamation through misinformation would be covered under your concern. However, I doubt Andrew Weaver is going to be able to establish malicious intent from the NP.

  3. The media has a right to report on things as they are…but they should not be allowed to defame people or make up false stories. The National Post seems to do this way too often, and maybe this will help rein them in. Misleading the public is pretty serious.

    • Your accusation against the NP is actually similar to Andrew Weaver's own claim against the NP. So, do you expect the NP to come and sue you now?

  4. It is unfortunate that this debate is fundamentally skewed. Scientists like Mr. Weaver are oligated to abide by scientific standards while bloggers and "news organizations" are not. Further, the National Post needs to clean up its act regarding the bloggers who are allowed to use their site. There is a profound amount of hateful and wildly inaccurate garbage being spewed. Recently, accusations of a "white-wash" in the so-called climate gate inquiries is a good example of such nonsense. The actual "scandal" was based on extraordinarily limited evidence (2 e-mails, 3 or 4 sentences…out of thousands of hacked e-mails) that amounted to someone being ticked off and venting to a colleague and assuming that his privacy would not be violated. Yet, somehow, the blogger turned into a conspiracy of mammoth proportions, which is, at best, irresponsible. A reader might actually have believed that!

  5. fiction or non-fiction, how mutch trueth is neaded that is the question. the press seams to like to diside what makes a story, for that is all they seam to wright. the reader is forst to diside what is specualation and what is interpreted from other sorcess. one mans/womans word becomes gospel even if its baist on a lie. it is the responsibility of a person to chalange the media so the stories stop and the real news starts

    • Paging Dr. Oxford. Paging Dr. Oxford. Dictionary needed in "Need to Know" stat!

  6. Good luck to this "climatologist". He would be better off exposing his views in the National Post and debating them with the blogosphere if he had the courage and was so convinced he had been done wrong. Seems that he is not so confident about exposing his views to the public scrutiny and using the courts instead. I think if he wrote to the National post refuting the offending article(s), he would have the letter prominently published. Science is no longer esoteric and it would be a pleasure evaluating his views and debating with him!

  7. The National Post rejects that humans contribute to global arming or climate change. And its libel insurance will ensure NP readers never get a balanced story and the scientific facts. Hopefully, the insurer will demand better.

  8. The National Post rejects that humans contribute to Global Warming or climate change. And its libel insurance will ensure NP readers never get a balanced story and the scientific facts. Hopefully, the insurer will demand better.

  9. If reporters and their news organization publish claims that Global Warming is a hoax used to fraudulently collect research money or to obtain money in other ways they should expect to produce evidence that will hold up in court.

    By the way a few seconds of web searching reveals that Roger McConchie has literally written the book on suing for libel in Canada.

    The Deniers at the NP should be taking this very seriously.

  10. People should read the Statement of Claim. It doesn't matter which entity is for or against climate change here, or who is right or wrong about that scientific issue. Weaver is is simply objecting to what he says are falsehoods attributed to him which are defamatory in nature. His science could be dead wrong, but he is still entitled to have what he says about it correctly reported. Furthermore, he is entitled to have his stance on the reliability of certain institutions correctly reported.

    Agree, or disagree with what he believes, it is not defensible to shove words in his mouth which are not his, and then refuse to issue corrections.

    Now, maybe The National Post is somehow right. We'll see, I hope.

  11. The National Post seems to be motivated by ideology not science.

  12. Fuddle Duddle!

  13. My understanding is that anyone can put anything in a statement of claim. But until the claims are proven in a court of law, they really don't mean a thing.

    I'm not sure what Weaver's trying to accomplish, but distributing a press release to announce that one believes one has been defamed is somewhat unfathomable to me. Unless one subscribes to the anti-democratic principle of "free speech for me, but not for thee".