[Wally_Sconce]

there's nothing liberal about the Liberal gun ban.

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tricks Tricks:

DerbyX DerbyX:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

Actually it the leftists who have the verifiable reputation for suppressing free speech. Any calls for prosecuting alarmists are the reaction from long experience with Suzuki and other activists calling for persecution of contrarians/sceptics/deniers. The instances of scientists being denied grants research funds and being dismissed at the behest of activists is very large.
The alarmist activist do not just propose persecution of opposing view they practice it whereever they have influence.

The email "somehow we must make the medieval warming period disappear" is the smoking gun of the CO2 conspiracy. Evidence of deliberate conspiracy to obscure historical record.

Intent is a smoky concept. In the case of diseminating false, damaging information the mere proof of knowledge that the information is false suffices.

For example, with his qualifications James Hansen could be represented as an expert witness. However if he testified in court, that contrary to popular belief the sun rises in the west and sets in the east....his testimony would not be accepted and he would be in custody, subject to psychiatric assessment at best----contempt of court and/or perjury more likely.

Get real.

Suppression of freedom of speech is a hallmark right wing tactic. Witness the whole creationism vs evolution.

A perfect right-wing vs left-wing battle if ever there was one. The right used every disgusting tactic (and still does) to defeat a fact it hates.

A few lefties have taken their defence of the enviornment a little too far but thats a far cry from a global conspiracy and its even farther then yours and the right wings levelof BS that all the global warming proponents are lying.

They may be wrong (they aren't) but they aren't lying.

Ahem... righty here, not religious

Thats true. You still can't deny the label "right-wing christian" is pretty much etched in stone.

I'm a lefty but I don't believe in gun bans either.

Just goes to show you that labels can be misleading.

For instance the university in University of Western Ontario might mislead people into believing its actually a school for higher learning.

(awaits yours and Mustang1's response)

Better than the run down piece of shit you went to. Road kill skunk would make better university profs than the ones at that ass backwards school.

As per the right-wing christian, it's kinda like the "Bleeding-heart Liberal" no?

[Wally_Sconce]

there's a difference.

right wing christians feel a great debt to society

bleeding heart liberals feel a great debt to society, of which they intend to repay with your taxes.

[Blue_Nose]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Also here's an example of why climate lies matter, and why we should consider putting legal pressure under existing law on those who tell them.

Mainstream media lies about potential flood

Again, you're arbitrarily singling out climate-related arguments.

When is they guy behind the Atkins diet going to go to jail for pushing an ineffective diet regime? Who should be sued for making airports ridiculously paranoid about terrorist threats? When are unfortunate parents going to be compensated for being brainwashed into thinking Tickle-me-Elmo was worth hundreds of dollars?

Being wrong or agressively pushing your point of view is not fraud.

You admitted yourself elsewhere that you accepted underhanded tactics of other groups opposing climate change theories, yet here you feel those on the other side of the fence should be jailed simply for making an error, or using an inflection you disaprove of. That you suspect these scientists (there are plenty of other scientists that agree with Hansen - I suppose they're in on his evil plans, too?) are even suspect, much less guilty, of real crimes is laughable.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Also here's an example of why climate lies matter, and why we should consider putting legal pressure under existing law on those who tell them.

Mainstream media lies about potential flood

Oh, so now you want throw all the "mainstream media" journalists in jail as well as the intellectuals? Jeez, you're really heading for Saddam and Mussolini land now.

[sasquatch2]

$1:

When is they guy behind the Atkins diet going to go to jail for pushing an ineffective diet regime? Who should be sued for making airports ridiculously paranoid about terrorist threats? When are unfortunate parents going to be compensated for being brainwashed into thinking Tickle-me-Elmo was worth hundreds of dollars?

Good point. however....that does not spin away the "globe's" spin on a state agency warning causing property damage and possibly lose of life.

James Hansen, head of GISS, a NASA agency is no doubt more than aware that the ARGOS data indicates NO OCEAN WARMING and yet continues his campaign of rewriting history to support HIS political agenda.

Hansen is the poster boy of someone, who should know better but originates falsifications.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Also here's an example of why climate lies matter, and why we should consider putting legal pressure under existing law on those who tell them.

Mainstream media lies about potential flood

Oh, so now you want throw all the "mainstream media" journalists in jail as well as the intellectuals? Jeez, you're really heading for Saddam and Mussolini land now.

Who said I wanted them thrown in jail. I would however sue them if they prevented me from getting the correct information from a disaster organization, and as a result me or mine suffered monetary, or physical injury. I'd be pissed if, as in this case, they wouldn't release the correct information, because it conflicted with their agitprop that the world was getting warmer. I'd expect whatever government agencies look after such stuff to look into it, and take whatever actions the existing law demands.

Why are you continuing to accuse me of political radicalism for simply expecting the existing law to work equally for all?

I'm not asking for what Suzuki and others want. I'm not declaring new laws must be written to put my opposition in jail. I simply want the existing laws to do what they were written to do, and protect the common citizen.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Also here's an example of why climate lies matter, and why we should consider putting legal pressure under existing law on those who tell them.

Mainstream media lies about potential flood

Oh, so now you want throw all the "mainstream media" journalists in jail as well as the intellectuals? Jeez, you're really heading for Saddam and Mussolini land now.

Who said I wanted them thrown in jail. I would however sue them if they prevented me from getting the correct information from a disaster organization, and as a result me or mine suffered monetary, or physical injury. I'd be pissed if, as in this case, they wouldn't release the correct information, because it conflicted with their agitprop that the world was getting warmer. I'd expect whatever government agencies look after such stuff to look into it, and take whatever actions the existing law demands.

Why are you continuing to accuse me of political radicalism for simply expecting the existing law to work equally for all?

I'm not asking for what Suzuki and others want. I'm not declaring new laws must be written to put my opposition in jail. I simply want the existing laws to do what they were written to do, and protect the common citizen.

Why am I accusing you--and freaking old guy--of political radicalism? Gee, I can't imagine. Maybe it's because you want to throw intellectuals in jail just for stating thier beliefs. Maybe it's because you want to bring to bear the full power of the state to muzzle journalists. Here in Canada, that's considered radical. Your assertion that this is some kind of fraud is ludicrous beyond belief. The courts in both Canada and the US have granted the citizens wide latitude for free speech, thankfully overruling wannabe totalitarians such as yourself who would jail anyone who voices an opinion contrary to theirs.

[N_Fiddledog]

You see I never get that. I never get how somebody can be so wired into his belief system he can't hear the information. Nevertheless I'll try one more time to help you hear it. I figure if I keep repeating myself enough, eventually it will get through the programming.

Being aware of the limitations of free speech isn't the same thing as being opposed to it. Let's try the old you can't scream fire in a crowded building thing. There are complications to free speech creating the need for situations of limitation. Thus we have laws meant to hold each other within those rational borders of what can not be said, even though we prefer freedom to speak freely.

If a media organization accepts the responsibility of disseminating truthful information in the event of a disaster, it intentionally lies, and the lie causes harm, that lie isn't free speech. As far as I know they can be sued. If I'm correct there's a cost? This would mean that kind of speech isn't free. Those damaged can sue. If a person lies to coerce others for monetary, or other gain, and he knows it's a lie, that isn't free speech. It's fraud and there are laws against it. You can't email a global warming skeptic and threaten to kill him. There are laws against that. This is why those who have done it never leave their real names.

If that is the "free speach" you believe you are defending, then you are the radical. Our society has banded together to create laws against speech like that.

Now when Suzuki says he wants to imprison politicians who disagree with him on global warming, that's just not the same thing. He is speaking against speech that actually is free.

For example, Al Gore likes Bio-fuels, and ethanol. He even invests in such plans. Suzuki is a defender of Kyoto. I think they're idiots, but I still think they have the right to be idiots, and to indulge in idiot-speak. Suzuki however disagrees with that sort of free speech even though he benefits from it. He doesn't think the opposing viewpoint should be legal when it is his viewpoint that is being opposed. He wants people who enjoy that presently legal free speach imprisoned. It is legal to be opposed to global warming ideology, and to speak against it (so far anyway), but Suzuki doesn't think it should be. That's radicalism.

C'mon seriously, I don't believe you're that simple. I don't believe you don't know there's a line between what speech is and isn't free. Not should, or shouldn't be, but is, or isn't. Because if something "is", and you're saying it shouldn't be, then you're the radical. And you know what? Fill your boots with that radical speak. You have the right. Just don't break the existing law.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You see I never get that. I never get how somebody can be so wired into his belief system he can't hear the information. Nevertheless I'll try one more time to help you hear it. I figure if I keep repeating myself enough, eventually it will get through the programming.

You said you wanted them locked up. I do see the false distinctions you are trying to draw now to lend credence to this ludicrous notion that former US vice-president and Nobel prize winner Al Gore, scietntist Dr. David Suzuki and scientist Dr. James Hansen should be locked up for stating their views.

Frankly, I'm amazed you're sticking to your guns on this one.

$1:

Being aware of the limitations of free speech isn't the same thing as being opposed to it. Let's try the old you can't scream fire in a crowded building thing. There are complications to free speech creating the need for situations of limitation. Thus we have laws meant to hold each other within those rational borders of what can not be said, even though we prefer freedom to speak freely.

There are limits to free speech. But not many. As I've stated twice now, the courts in Canada adn teh US have granted a wide latitude to free speech. Very wide. Especialyl whne it comes to stating beliefs. Even the law against spreading false news was struck down by the Supremem Court of Canada on the basis of a freedom of speech Charter challenge.

In this case, the people you are accusing are stating their beliefs on global warming and they are broadly backed by most scietnists workind doing research in relevant fields. In England, a group already tried to ban "An Inconvenient Truth" from being shown in shcools. In that case the Judge found several errors in the film, but deemed the film "broadly accurate." So there is even jurisprudence against your ridiculuous viewpoint.

$1:

If a media organization accepts the responsibility of disseminating truthful information in the event of a disaster, it intentionally lies, and the lie causes harm, that lie isn't free speech. As far as I know they can be sued. If I'm correct there's a cost? This would mean that kind of speech isn't free. Those damaged can sue. If a person lies to coerce others for monetary, or other gain, and he knows it's a lie, that isn't free speech. It's fraud and there are laws against it. You can't email a global warming skeptic and threaten to kill him. There are laws against that. This is why those who have done it never leave their real names.

A media orgainzation does not "accept responsibility for disseminating truthful information." Where are you dreaming this crap up? You think the Weekly World News or National Enquirer--two magazines readily available in Canada in the US for decades--"accept responsibility to disseminate truthful infromation"? Perhaps you also know how difficult it is for celbrities to sue these kinds of newspapers because of the wide latitude the courts have given free speech even when individuals are directly and falsely impugned. And here, you're talking about suing not tabloids, but journalists who simply state a beliefe that is backed by the majority of the world's relevant scientists. No judge would consider sucha belief unreasonable, even it were to be ultimately false.

Strike 2.

$1:

If that is the "free speach" you believe you are defending, then you are the radical. Our society has banded together to create laws against speech like that.

Whatever. Don't try to trun thet ables on this one. YOU want to lock up three of this continents most prominent intellectuals because of what they say and you want to muzzle the media to prevent them from saying thingfs with which you don't agree.

$1:

Now when Suzuki says he wants to imprison politicians who disagree with him on global warming, that's just not the same thing. He is speaking against speech that actually is free.

To paraphrase Blue_Nose, Suzuki's plan is just as stupid as yours. At least Suzuki had the sense to back away from his afterwards.

$1:

He doesn't think the opposing viewpoint should be legal when it is his viewpoint that is being opposed. He wants people who enjoy that presently legal free speach imprisoned. It is legal to be opposed to global warming ideology, and to speak against it (so far anyway), but Suzuki doesn't think it should be. That's radicalism.

I agree. A viewpoint that seeks to jail people for holding an opposing viewpoint is radical. So I would say both you and Suzuki are radical.

$1:

C'mon seriously, I don't believe you're that simple. I don't believe you don't know there's a line between what speech is and isn't free. Not should, or shouldn't be, but is, or isn't. Because if something "is", and you're saying it shouldn't be, then you're the radical. And you know what? Fill your boots with that radical speak. You have the right. Just don't break the existing law.

Again, this line between a new versus an existing law is a false distinction. I don't think Suzuki ever said he wanted to make a new law. According to the National Post, Suzuki said:

$1:

What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act.

Again, he backed away from the statement right after. His media people put out that he didn't mean the statement to be taken literally (hard to take it any other way, in my opinion).

Another straw dog you've erected: I have never said there should be no limits on free speech. That would be radical. No freedom is absolute. But again, let's be clear: you want to lock up three of North America's most prominent intellectuals for stating their beliefs on global warming which are broadly backed by science, including the IPCC fourth assesement report which may be the largest scientific study ever undertaken. That is radical and it's offensive, frankly.

But, more importantly, it's a weak argument, and you won't get far with it. You should just drop it.

[Blue_Nose]

This is just stupid now - does anyone doubt that Hansen believes the earth is being warmed by human emissions? For it to be fraud, he has to know his claims are false, and convince people otherwise.

There's no doubt that he's done his share of convincing, but he obviously believes in his research - it's not fraud, period.

Our supposed-law-school-graduate-turned-trucker samsquanch can't even come up with a good legal case against climatologists, and N_Fiddledog is still grasping at straws with the toned-down "suspicion" that a crime may have been committed.

It's dumb, it's wrong, get over it, move on.

[sasquatch2]

Zipperfish

$1:

And here, you're talking about suing not tabloids, but journalists who simply state a beliefe that is backed by the majority of the world's relevant scientists.

Now here you have delineated the prime bit of fraud---the Mythical "consensus"...which on even casual examination has been found to be non-existent. There is no "consensus" by any definition, there has never been evidence of a majority of "scientists". Each time a list is presented it is computer programmers, graduate students, communications, economists, activists without any accreditation.......except for the the three envir-terrorists at RealClimate.

In the absence of real scientific evidence, the mythical consensus is cited as proof "the science" and 'the theory" are credible. When no such consensus exists that IS fraud.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You see I never get that. I never get how somebody can be so wired into his belief system he can't hear the information. Nevertheless I'll try one more time to help you hear it. I figure if I keep repeating myself enough, eventually it will get through the programming.

You said you wanted them locked up. I do see the false distinctions you are trying to draw now to lend credence to this ludicrous notion that former US vice-president and Nobel prize winner Al Gore, scietntist Dr. David Suzuki and scientist Dr. James Hansen should be locked up for stating their views.

Frankly, I'm amazed you're sticking to your guns on this one.

Because you don't friggin listen. Complexities and subtleties of argument, go in, get filtered through the Zipperfish mind control matrix, and come out as mouthed platitudes, altered truths and flat out lies.

I've never called for Hansen or Gore to be locked up. I've consistently said if it turns out these guys are breaking existing laws they should stand before them, either in the form of lawsuits, or if so warranted under criminal prosecution.

As Blue Nose stated criminal prosecution is unlikely to happen at present. You could prove the lies easy enough in a court of law (as has already been done in the British Case you mentioned), but you'd have to prove he knew they were lies, he was lying with intent to profit, and specific damage was caused. The connection between those 3 areas is too tenuous at present. My contention has always been if in the future that connection is clarified to the point there is clear violation of existing law, prosecution should be considered.

There are no existing laws to allow the imprisonment of politicians for opposing global warming doctrine (which is what Suzuki refers to with the line "What they're doing"). This is what Suzuki proposed. He therefore wanted new laws. That's something different.

I considered showing you where all that other gobbledy-gook you mentioned is either partially, or wholly false, but really why bother? It would only serve to distract, which I'm going to assume was the intention.

This is worth a click - Scientific Fraudsters

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

[Because you don't friggin listen. Complexities and subtleties of argument, go in, get filtered through the Zipperfish mind control matrix, and come out as mouthed platitudes, altered truths and flat out lies.

Funny how anyone that doesn't agree with you is a liar or a fraudster. Bottom line: You want to bring the power of the state to bear to muzzle or jail people who don't agree wiht you. Your argument reeks of desperation.

$1:

As Blue Nose stated criminal prosecution is unlikely to happen at present. You could prove the lies easy enough in a court of law (as has already been done in the British Case you mentioned), but you'd have to prove he knew they were lies, he was lying with intent to profit, and specific damage was caused. The connection between those 3 areas is too tenuous at present. My contention has always been if in the future that connection is clarified to the point there is clear violation of existing law, prosecution should be considered.

And, as stated, a British judge has already ruled on "An Inconvenient Truth," concluding that it was broadly accurate despite several factual errors. Needless to say the burden of prrof for a fraud case would be much higher than that. Not that you, Samsquanch or Freakingoldguy would know much about that with your laughingly infantile understanding of criminal law and the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

$1:

There are no existing laws to allow the imprisonment of politicians for opposing global warming doctrine (which is what Suzuki refers to with the line "What they're doing"). This is what Suzuki proposed. He therefore wanted new laws. That's something different.

Your argument is complete fluff. Suzuki never proposed new laws. He wants to do exactly what you want to do--jail those who speak out against him. You guys are two birds of a feather.

$1:

This is worth a click - Scientific Fraudsters

And for icing on the cake, another right-wing wingnut blog is presented as some kind of objective evidence for your crackpot notions.

Game, set and match.

[sasquatch2]

and only alarmist spin and fraud is acceptable....RIIIGGGHHHTTT....

CO2 AGW is a HOAX

No warming
No melting Polar bears
No "science"
No "consensus"

Game, set and match.