[Blue_Nose]

So, according to Freakinoldguy you're free to say whatever you like, but if people start actually listening to you, it's time to be locked up.

Wonderful.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's the difference between what Suzuki proposes, and what some global warming skeptics are proposing.

Suzuki proposes politicians who disagree with global warming ideology should be put in prison.

Some skeptics are starting to say that more evidence is starting to come in suggesting there never was much real science support for global warming theory, and a significant amount of the support offered appears to be have been fabricated by people who should have known better. Also these same people received monetary, or other benefits as a result of the fraud. There may be cause within existing law to justify legal repercussions.

Those two proposals are not the same thing.

[hwacker]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

So, according to Freakinoldguy you're free to say whatever you like, but if people start actually listening to you, it's time to be locked up.

Wonderful.

If taxes are based around the GW bullshit that’s fraud. Dion should be the first in jail followed by the Nobel Prize winning snake oil salesman.

[Blue_Nose]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Those two proposals are not the same thing.

They're both stupid, though.

[Blue_Nose]

hwacker hwacker:

If taxes are based around the GW bullshit that’s fraud. Dion should be the first in jail followed by the Nobel Prize winning snake oil salesman.

It's CO2 emissions that are taxed, not global warming.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

$1:

And again I'm supposed to be the socilaist and yet you are the one wanting to lock people up for merely repeating what the majority of scientists are telling us? Give your head a shake.

What majority of scientists? The consensus is just another lie/myth...consisting of Hansen, Shmidt and Mann. 3 guys at Real Climate. Give YOUR head a shake!
Freakinoldguy

$1:

You just don't get it do you. It isn't about some guy who is writing letters to the editor to give his opinion. It's about an enormous scam thought up by people who are making millions out of blatent fear mongering.

And the irony is the the AGW alarmists are the very ones practicing censure and suppression of free speech and proposing prosecuting/imprisoning what they lable as deniers.

[sasquatch2]

Blue_Nose

$1:

hwacker wrote:

$1:

If taxes are based around the GW bullshit that’s fraud. Dion should be the first in jail followed by the Nobel Prize winning snake oil salesman.

It's CO2 emissions that are taxed, not global warming.

And without the GW bullshit CO2 emissions would not be considered.
Try again!!!!

[Zipperfish]

hwacker hwacker:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Yes, becasue this is Canada, where we allowed to speak our minds.

Really now, the CHRC has a different take on that if you're a white guy at least. Oh and lock down your wireless connection TIGHT. These asshats are known to hijack people’s connection to phish for bad (white) guys.

You should be locked up for saying that!

[Zipperfish]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Those two proposals are not the same thing.

They're both stupid, though.

you said it, brother!

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

And without the GW bullshit CO2 emissions would not be considered.
Try again!!!!

That doesn't make it fraud, Mr. "I went to law school".

Try again!!!!

[sasquatch2]

Blue_Nose

$1:

sasquatch2 wrote:

$1:

And without the GW bullshit CO2 emissions would not be considered.
Try again!!!!

That doesn't make it fraud, Mr. "I went to law school".

Try again!!!!

$1:

Misrepresentation of a material fact consisting of a false representation, concealment or non-disclosure;

Knowledge of the falsity (scienter);
Intent to deceive and induce reliance;
Justifiable and actual reliance on the misrepresentation; and
Resulting damages.

Not a bad definituion of fraud. Nailing Gore/Suzuki et al would be a slam dunk in court except for the political aspects. The Brit High Court so ruled.
Try again! ( now comes the obscene language and name calling)

[Zipperfish]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Blue_Nose

$1:

sasquatch2 wrote:

$1:

And without the GW bullshit CO2 emissions would not be considered.
Try again!!!!

That doesn't make it fraud, Mr. "I went to law school".

Try again!!!!

$1:

Misrepresentation of a material fact consisting of a false representation, concealment or non-disclosure;

Knowledge of the falsity (scienter);
Intent to deceive and induce reliance;
Justifiable and actual reliance on the misrepresentation; and
Resulting damages.

Not a bad definituion of fraud. Nailing Gore/Suzuki et al would be a slam dunk in court except for the political aspects. The Brit High Court so ruled.
Try again! ( now comes the obscene language and name calling)

You know about as much about law as you do about science--that is to say: Diddly Squat. Why don't you and your freedom-hating buddies hop a plane to North Korea. You'll probably find their speech laws there more to your liking, comrade.

[Blue_Nose]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

$1:

Misrepresentation of a material fact consisting of a false representation, concealment or non-disclosure;

Knowledge of the falsity (scienter);
Intent to deceive and induce reliance;
Justifiable and actual reliance on the misrepresentation; and
Resulting damages.

Not a bad definituion of fraud. Nailing Gore/Suzuki et al would be a slam dunk in court except for the political aspects. The Brit High Court so ruled.
Try again! ( now comes the obscene language and name calling)

I expected more from our law-school graduate than a google search for the definition, and one not even from a Canadian legal source - pretty weak.

Even if parts of climate models and/or theories are proven incorrect, that doesn't prove the error was intentional or in bad faith - just two things required for fraud. How are you going to prove all the researchers whose research supports these global warming theories intended to deceive the public, and are responsible for the government's imposing emissions taxes?

[N_Fiddledog]

Let's take James Hansen for example.

If it ever comes to the point somebody has to be investigated, I'd nominate him first.

* He refuses to release the full methodology as to how he manages data. There's something he feels he needs to be kept secret.

* His work as a scientist is financed by the public purse.

* His information has been proven incorrect on multiple occasions.

* His information changes from year to year. For example old climate data is changed to make old temperatures colder, and newer temperatures warmer. In this way the trend of warming he postulates becomes more alarming. Nobody knows exactly what he bases the need for these changes on. Again he refuses to release his full methodology.

* He's received money through backdoor channels.

Does this need to be investigated criminally at this point? Maybe not, but I wouldn't rule it out for the future.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Let's take James Hansen for example.

If it ever comes to the point somebody has to be investigated, I'd nominate him first.

* He refuses to release the full methodology as to how he manages data. There's something he feels he needs to be kept secret.

* His work as a scientist is financed by the public purse.

* His information has been proven incorrect on multiple occasions.

* His information changes from year to year. For example old climate data is changed to make old temperatures colder, and newer temperatures warmer. In this way the trend of warming he postulates becomes more alarming.

* He's received money through backdoor channels.

Does this need to be investigated criminally at this point? Maybe not, but I wouldn't rule it out for the future.

No, I'm sure you wouldn't. The neo-conservatives are a pretty socialist bunch really--even so far as throwing away free speech laws to lock up people who say things they don't agree with.

If you look throughout history, when you start locking up your prominent sceintists and intellectuals because you don't like what they say, you are in some pretty questionable company.