Warmists strike out in attempt to stifle criticism

Thomas Lifson
The humiliation of the University of East Anglia, home of "hide the decline" global warmist Phil Jones, deepens, as its attempt to suppress criticism has come up a cropper. Lawrence Soloman, writing in the Financial Post, explains:

James Delingpole, a take-no-prisoner blogger with the Daily Telegraph, has been a relentless critic of the university and the professor at the heart of the scandal, Phil Jones. In an attempt to curb Delingpole's blog posts, the university lodged a complaint with the UK Press Complaints Commission, an independent body. The Commission's decision, just out, is a crushing repudiation of the university's attempt to manage dissent that could strike a blow for free speech everywhere.

The Commission's complete decision can be found here. The nub:

"The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnist's own robust views of the matters in question. ... The Commission has previously ruled [North v The Guardian] that ‘In the realm of blogging (especially in cases touching upon controversial topics such as climate change), there is likely to be strong and fervent disagreement, with writers making use of emotive terms and strident rhetoric.  This is a necessary consequence of free speech. The Commission felt that it should be slow to intervene in this, unless there is evidence of factual inaccuracy or misleading statement."

The almost certain sign of a scientific fraud is the impulse to squelch criticism. Political fraud, too.

Hat tip: Richard Baehr
The humiliation of the University of East Anglia, home of "hide the decline" global warmist Phil Jones, deepens, as its attempt to suppress criticism has come up a cropper. Lawrence Soloman, writing in the Financial Post, explains:

James Delingpole, a take-no-prisoner blogger with the Daily Telegraph, has been a relentless critic of the university and the professor at the heart of the scandal, Phil Jones. In an attempt to curb Delingpole's blog posts, the university lodged a complaint with the UK Press Complaints Commission, an independent body. The Commission's decision, just out, is a crushing repudiation of the university's attempt to manage dissent that could strike a blow for free speech everywhere.

The Commission's complete decision can be found here. The nub:

"The Commission was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments therein represented the columnist's own robust views of the matters in question. ... The Commission has previously ruled [North v The Guardian] that ‘In the realm of blogging (especially in cases touching upon controversial topics such as climate change), there is likely to be strong and fervent disagreement, with writers making use of emotive terms and strident rhetoric.  This is a necessary consequence of free speech. The Commission felt that it should be slow to intervene in this, unless there is evidence of factual inaccuracy or misleading statement."

The almost certain sign of a scientific fraud is the impulse to squelch criticism. Political fraud, too.

Hat tip: Richard Baehr