CCD Editor’s note: Our site has also come under attack by this dubious, phony fact-checking website, which forced me to correct them on our About Us page.
I’m delighted that someone is finally taking action on them in the courts.
* * * * *
The discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease-and-desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
According to MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK, Principia Scientific International CIC is:
“CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]”
So, who is fact-checking the ‘fact-checkers’?
Today, PSI has issued Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) site owner, Dave Van Zandt with a pre-action legal notice to take down the defamatory and false smear.
Ironically, the self-styled ‘MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK‘ (MB/FC) which negatively fact-checked PSI admits it relies on subjective bias to decide how biased others are. In other words, MB/FC is a pseudoscientific fact checker!
Apart from unlawfully smearing PSI, Mr. Van Zandt has smeared other websites that publish scientific articles critical of man-made global warming claims. Among the unfairly smeared are:
- Climate Change Dispatch
- CFACT
- WUWT (Watts Up With That?)
Below we help readers to fact-check the pseudo-fact-checker. We put Dave Van Zandt the faceless fact-checker under the microscope and discovered the following:
- Van Zandt Cites No Scientific Qualifications At All
- Van Zandt Was Exposed By WND As A Fraud And A Liar
- Van Zandt’s Website (MBFC) Does Not Apply Any Objective Scientific Method
- MBFC Relies On Unverifiable Subjectivity (Own Bias) To Make Judgments
In a 2017 WND Exclusive ‘Phony baloney: The 9 fakest fake-news checkers’, Chelsea Schilling uncovered that Van Zandt was a seasoned systemic faker. She wrote:
“WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.
Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”
Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website.”
With the increasing scourge of fake news reports, especially on matters of wider scientific interest, Principia Scientific International (PSI) has become a recognized source of highly qualified scientific opinion.
That scoundrels like Mr. Van Zandt get much traction with his bogus ‘fact-checking’ website is a testimony to the need for more diligence and pushback from honest scientists, other journalists, and citizens sickened by endless scientific fraud and misinformation.
Below we share with readers the take-down letter issued today to Mr. Van Zandt:
Mr Dave Van Zandt
Media Bias/Fact Check
(mediabiasfactcheck.com)
Greensboro, NCDear Mr Dave Van Zandt,
Re: Notice to Cease & Desist Libelous Conduct
Please accept this communication as a Cease and Desist Notice prior to legal action under 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1).
It has been drawn to our attention that your business, MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK is libeling our business, Principia Scientific International(PSI) by posting the following (recorded on March 13, 2020)
On your site at: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ you state:
“Conspiracy/Pseudoscience
The Conspiracy/Pseudoscience designation is reserved for sources that publish unverifiable information that relates to known conspiracies such as the New World Order, Illuminati, False Flags, Aliens, etc. Pseudoscience is determined by publishing unverified health and scientific claims. In order to be classified in this group the central theme of the source must revolve around conspiracies or pseudoscience.”
On the same webpage you add the following disclaimer:
“Disclaimer: The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias. Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention. We make every effort to be as factual as possible. Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own criteria.”
According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary the term ‘pseudoscience’ is defined as: “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”
You thus taint our scientific organisation as unscientific – a palpable lie provable in a court of law.
It is our belief you have made the above published statement with intention of causing damage to the reputation of our legally regulated UK non-profit scientific association which is scrupulously regulated under law as a community interest company (CiC).
By law a CIC is prohibited from political bias i.e. it cannot advocate for any political point of view. To engage in such action would render us likely to be struck off the register or be prosecuted.
Contrary to the false impression you give your readers, we are an international body of 5,500+ members, many of whom are credentialed science professionals, engineers and STEM academics, including award-winning scientists, government experts, etc.
Our published work is not pseudoscience but premised on established scientific methods. A select list of some of our distinguished member is here: A Selection Of Member Biographies. [1]
In conclusion, not only do you admit your own methodology is unscientific, but because you also fail to cite which specific PSI posts are pseudoscience, you condemn all our members, which compounds your own bias.
As per 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1) we regard the words below civilly actionable and demand removal of them within 28 days:
“CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international
If you persist in maintaining this false assertion against us to jeopardize our legal standing, I hereby require you to provide substantiation of your accusation. You may do so by providing us a selection of hyperlinks from published material on our website(s) which you claim are ‘conspiracy-pseudoscience.’
Such evidence may then be considered for submission to a court of law for adjudication of the veracity of your claims.
If you are unwilling/unable to provide us the evidence you rely on to make your claims then you are hereby required to remove your false statement.
[1] https://principia-scientific.org/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/
I await your reply.
Sincerely,
John O’Sullivan CEO
Kudos to PSI!
Updated Oct 13, 2023, with updated links.
I look forward to PSI issuing a cease and desist order against Dr Roy Spencer
“The Slayers have ample opportunity to post comments here outlining their views, often dominating the bandwidth, and those comments will remain for posterity.
But my blog is no longer going to provide them a platform for their unsupported pseudo-scientific claims…they can post their cult science on their own blog. ”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
Maybe Judith Curry as well
“The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots. So thank you Grant Petty for your engagement and independent assessment of this group.”
Or maybe Anthony Watts:
“The claim by the “slayers” is the worst form of science misinterpretation I’ve seen in a long time. By itself I would have ignored it, but some of our friends in other blogs have picked up the story, and because of the NASA link, thought it was credible example as the “slayers” framed it. It isn’t, it is a twisting of the facts in a press release about solar flares and the thermosphere to make it look like the lower atmosphere works the same way. ”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
Biden has received four Pinocchio’s for his false news on Corona Virus
Contrast the greenhouse or warming hypothesis
vs. the second law of thermodynamics.
That’s all that has to be done
You either prove the second law of thermodynamics
to be fundamentally wrong
Or you abandon the
Stupid – Ass Greenhouse conjecture
And Global Warming nonsense.
You disprove the second law of thermodynamics
or there is no room for the
STUPID ASS
hypothesis of a
” greenhouse effect ” or ” global warming ”
to even be considered
To all the stupid asses of the world :
Prove the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be
Fundamentally wrong or
Abandon your stupid-ass hypothesis.
The GHE does not violate the SLOT. Ask Dr Roy Spencer:
“2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation…including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by putting your clothes on.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/
Such a pleasure to read that legal prose from John O’Sullivan. Wish that in Denmark there was a legal way to counter similar smearing, but the libel laws are lax here.
We still have the leftists M.S. Media the NYT.CNN and the usial lowlife bottom dwellers and muck suckers blaming Trump for the Coronavirus as always with these lowlife scumballs their Editorial Cartoons and news collums reach gutter level
I thought you American folks had a more summary and cheaper method of dealing with such people expeditiously, send Vincent and Jules. Must have gone soft. Is this one of those Southern Van Zandt rockers, hence wholly irrational and on drugs and alchohol? etc. DeSmog blog is equally vulnerable to such an approach, BTW.