[mixedfarmer]

sasquatch2 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.

your a fucking genius NOTTTTT

[Blue_Nose]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

right-wing wingnut blog

Actually, the proper terminology is Skeptic® blog. It helps mask the blatant partisanship prevalent in this debate.

[sasquatch2]

And then Layton thinks the taliban can be reasoned with?????

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Game, set and match.

Oh God here we go again. Why is it every time you're getting your ass kicked you withdraw into Zipperfish world, and declare yourself winner of something...I'm never sure exactly what.

I always know when you start to realize you're getting thumped, because you make these mad-ass attempts to distract to another topic.

I'll tell you what, I think it's kind of cute, and you obviously realize now there's a difference between using existing laws to hold people accountable, and creating new ones to stifle debate, so very well, we can move on, and discuss this British court case you want so desperately to divert to.

I don't know why you want to though. You won't do any better there. You obviously don't understand what actually happened with that case. Here's what happened.

Viscount Monckton happened to be having dinner with a buddy of his. The subject moved on to global warming, and how only one side of the science (the warmist side) was ever presented. The one guy had money, and he later heard about this court case coming up where An Inconvenient Truth would be taught without acknowledgment of the science which disputed key factors of what was in Gore's film. Monckton's buddy financed the case.

So Monckton and his pal go to a British judge, and I'll let him tell it from here.

"Yes, okay. So we went to the government. They didn't reply satisfactorily. So we then served papers on them through lawyers and the case came to court and it was very interesting. The first judge who heard the case threw it out without actually watching the movie. So we went to the judge and said, did you watch the movie or didn't you, and he didn't reply. So we were able to demand to get a rehearing in front of another judge also we think somehow chosen by the labor government who we were fighting because they were wanting to put this wretched film into every school in England.

So the second judge who had in fact been a labor candidate before wanted to see it very much the labor party's way, but what we did was to pester the government scientific spokesman so that they themselves would either have to look scientifically stupid by pretending that Gore's film didn't have inaccuracy or they would have to admit that it was inaccurate. In the end they decided that for the sake of retaining what little scientific credibility the office still has, they better admit there were errors and once they admitted them, the judge, even though he wanted to, couldn't find that Gore's film was accurate."

Source

In other words, they won. The court had to acknowledge there was at least 9 specific scientific errors in An Inconvenient Truth. Now the judge, who as Monckton said had been a Labor party candidate and did want to see things his party's way, did offer up a disclaimer, something like "OK there's these lies, but it's still kind of true", but the fact remains the lawyers of Stewart Dimmock. the guy who actually brought the court case to trial consider it a "Landmark victory".

In spite of having the case heard before a judge who was prejudiced against it based on his politics Dimmock still won. An Inconvenient truth can no longer be taught in British Schools except under guidelines that acknowledges the science contradicting it.

$1:

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:

# Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

# Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

# Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, who is a member of the New Party.

His lawyers described the ruling as a "landmark victory".

Source

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh God here we go again. Why is it every time you're getting your ass kicked you withdraw into Zipperfish world, and declare yourself winner of something...I'm never sure exactly what.

Nice concession speech, bozo. You failed to present evidence for any of your points. You prestned no evidence at all that any of those you attack were guilty of fraud except for a link to some wingnut's blog. Your argument amounts to calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar and a fraud. In this post what do we have? More allegations of some vast conspiracy ("the prejudiced judge"), more anecdotal evidence from some smoky back room, links to yet another wingnut blogger. Puh-leeze. Stick a fork in yourself--you're done.

You really had a non-starter argument there, seeing as your basic proposition is: "Let's lock people up if they repeat what the consensus position of science is on climate change."

Bottom line; This is Canada. We don't lock people up for stating their point of view.

[sasquatch2]

$1:

You really had a non-starter argument there, seeing as your basic proposition is: "Let's lock people up if they repeat what the consensus position of science is on climate change."

Here we go again with this mythical consensus. Any examination of the consensus is that, in principle, it never existed. It was a fabrication made in the absense of any scientific proof of any warming or causation. Sort of "trust me---all these experts agree with my fantasy." The consensus was revealed to be computer programmers, psychologists, burteaucrats and graduate students and a small cable of activists entrenched at GISS---Realclimate's Hansen, Mann & Shmidt.

To continue to refer to this fraudulent "consensus" is fraud itself like referring to the PILTDOWN MAN.

[This]

Hmmm.. you guys seem to be fighting against each other, unnecessarily. Here's my views. First of all, I haven't fallen for the GW hoax, although I did up to a year ago. Suzuki is a Malthusian who hypes up the carbon footprint idea, and would prefer that most of us would just die off. For a zero or negative population proponent, he has predictably 5 children of his own.

The science of global warming is pretty complicated, but the science of CO2 acting in the atmosphere is relatively straightforward. For those who haven't seen this site explaining the physics, check it out, it's very well written:

(I can't post the link, so Google Middlebury Global Warming)


Whether Suzuki understands the CO2 physics or not, is not important. He is a true believer, and doesn't let facts get in way at this point. Al Gore is an opportunist but probably put out precisely because he has no scientific credentials, for future liability reasons.

What we should be concerned about is why we don't have a free press or responsible government where these issues can be publicized and discussed.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh God here we go again. Why is it every time you're getting your ass kicked you withdraw into Zipperfish world, and declare yourself winner of something...I'm never sure exactly what.

Nice concession speech, bozo. You failed to present evidence for any of your points. You prestned no evidence at all that any of those you attack were guilty of fraud except for a link to some wingnut's blog. Your argument amounts to calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar and a fraud. In this post what do we have? More allegations of some vast conspiracy ("the prejudiced judge"), more anecdotal evidence from some smoky back room, links to yet another wingnut blogger. Puh-leeze. Stick a fork in yourself--you're done.

You really had a non-starter argument there, seeing as your basic proposition is: "Let's lock people up if they repeat what the consensus position of science is on climate change."

Bottom line; This is Canada. We don't lock people up for stating their point of view.

Yeah, you just keep pouting, and proclaiming yourself some sort of imaginary winner. It's funny. Anybody who's read this thread knows all the points made from this side have been well supported. When the bullies you used to beat you up, and steal your lunch money in school did you used to strut around the schoolyard proclaiming how rich you were? You're a hoot.

Just for the fun of it though, I'll continue to clarify.

Creating new protocols or laws specifically designed to censor an opposing viewpoint is wrong. Suggesting it makes the speaker's argument look weak. This is why people continue mock Suzuki for doing just that. When Heidi Cullen suggested Meteorologists lose their accreditation for speaking against global warming it was similarly weak. James Hansen looked lame when he started mailing pressure letters on NASA stationary to school officials telling them only one viewpoint should be taught.

Breaking existing laws or protocols to censor the opposing argument is also wrong.

When Michael T. Eckhart emailed Marlo Lewis threatening to destroy his career if he continued to speak against global warming that was wrong.

Using pressure tactics to prevent others from producing an opposing viewpoint is just plain ugly. Loading the Wikipedia senior editing staff with editors who will only allow the global warming side of the issue to be presented adds more support to how useless the whole of wikipedia is. When the activist Jo Abess, pressured the BBC to change it's information it made both the BBC and the entire global warming argument look tainted.

On the other hand there are times when using existing laws and protocols to defend ones self, or even to make a point is defendable.

For example James Hansen used his position at NASA to condemn a presentation Monckton was making to the Kentucky state legislature. Hansen did this before he heard the presentation. Monckton complained to NASA, and alleged "financial irregularities behind the conduct of (NASA, specifically Hansen's) people in this matter... given that they have financial links with Al Gore". Now to me that's fair comment, and if the allegation is true it's a good thing Monckton brought it to NASA's attention.

I mentioned I thought it was wrong for Hansen to attempt to pressure schools to only allow his viewpoint. It wasn't necessarily wrong to make a complaint if Hansen genuinely believed incorrect information was being taught. What was wrong was he used NASA to apply pressure by using NASA stationary. He did this against NASA protocol. NASA has specific rules about such stuff, and Hansen has been warned about breaking them in the past. More specifically though he was wrong to demand only one side of a controversial issue be taught.

This is why skeptics view the British court case as a success. The conclusion was errors taught were acknowledged, and the controversy involving the general issue of global warming needed to be presented from that point on when one side was presented. This kind of use of existing law is kosher, even necessary the name of truth.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Yeah, you just keep pouting, and proclaiming yourself some sort of imaginary winner. It's funny. Anybody who's read this thread knows all the points made from this side have been well supported. When the bullies you used to beat you up, and steal your lunch money in school did you used to strut around the schoolyard proclaiming how rich you were? You're a hoot.

Well it seems my keen intellect and rapier wit have done you in once again and your left wallowing in the mire of your own entrails, like the knight from that Monty Python movie, insisting that it's only a flesh wound, and lobbing lame ad hominems in a desperate bid to save some face from your public thrashing.

But I'm a magnanimous soul at heart and I'll offer you a couple of free tips for next time:

Number 1: You should present evidence to support your viewpoints. For instance when you base on your argument on the fact that Suzuki wanted new laws put in place, you should present some evidence to that effect, rather than just state it over and over again. An dapart from your continued insistence that Gore at al. are lying, you present

Number 2: Usually opiniated bloggers who happen to support your particular viewpoint are not considered very objective from an evidentiary standpoint.

Number 3: Try to keep conspiracy theories to a minimum. When you go on about smoky backroom deals and a crooked judiciary, it makes for interesting, though less-than-convincing reading.

Both sides will have to argue the AGW argument without recourse to locking your opponents up, I'm afraid.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

rather than just state it over and over again.

You mean like the continuous insistence you've won something in the hopeless hope somebody might actually agree with you. So much of your argument appears to be based on the assumption people reading it are idiots.

I disagree. I think if anybody actually did follow the debate they'd see whatever you're talking about has nothing to do with the well supported points to the argument you seem to believe you're opposing.

I think they'd also notice you're points are based on a kind of crazed attempt to distract from the central issue. Witness this. We're stuck here arguing about arguing.

Here's my point. There are times when legal recourse is acceptable, but the continual border-line to outright corruption of laws and protocols from the warmist do not apply. There's much support for that in the preceding posts. Here's a novel suggestion for yourself. You might try at least once finding some support for whatever it is your point is. I imagine first of all you'll have to figure out what that point is. I know I can't find it, as of yet.

[Zipperfish]

Well, much as I like to blow my own horn, I kind of won this one by default. You never really presented a case. You didn't present the elements of a fraud case. You didn't indicate why freedom of speech Charter Rights would not apply. The one court case you did mention actually went against your fraud allegation. The basis of your argument was that your claim was different than Suzuki's, because you advocated the use of existing law, whereas Suzuki wanted new law--but you couldn't support this statement either.

But quite apart from the technical details above, you were more or less bound to lose an argument that calls for jailing people for repeating what the majority of the world's scientists are telling us.

Hey, thanks for showing up though. Three cheers for me--Hip Hip Hooray!

[N_Fiddledog]

Is Mom serving milk and cookies for this celebration which is happening only in the Zipperfish mind, and no place else on earth?

It's difficult to know how to respond here, because there seems to be 2 debates going on. The one where I continue to support the consistent point, and the one you seem to believe you're having over I'm still not sure exactly what.

As I stated before with multiple examples, there are cases where the continuous incidents of dirty deeds done by warmists may turn out to require some sort of response, possibly legal.

Weather channel founder John Coleman is calling for Al Gore to be prosecuted federally. He alleges irregularities to do with Gore's investment company General Investment management. It's supposed to be a carbon offset investment company, or just an investment company, depending on who's talking, and at what event. Viscount Monckton says the case has something to with what he calls a "false prospectus". Personally I don't really get this one. I'm just informing you of it's existing. If it should turn out investors are being defrauded though, then yes this would be a case where criminal prosecution would be called for. My point has always been such cases should be prosecuted by existing law if they do exist.

Monckton himself has called for donations made towards a court case much like the successful one he was involved with in Britain, where at one time the errors in An Inconvenient Truth were taught in British schools much as they are presently done in America, and Canada without guidelines informing the film as propaganda, not science. They should go for this one.

Douglas J. Keenan alleges fraud involving the production of incorrect Chinese weather data by Wei-Chyung Wang. I personally don't get the need for legal recourse here, because I don't know who the damaged party would be.

I believe Kyoto creator Maurice Strong is currently hiding out in China, because he faces possible criminal charges involving the UN food for oil deal. If similar irregularities were ever found behind Kyoto, then yes, I would say charges would be called for there as well, whether it involves the sacred cow of climate change, or not.

Is there any possibility you might figure out what the point is some time in the future? Slapping you about with facts is getting tedious. The point is there may be circumstances in the future where legal recourse may be justified involving the climate change movement. Can you figure that out yet. Call your mom. Maybe she can help.

[Zipperfish]

$1:

The point is there may be circumstances in the future where legal recourse may be justified involving the climate change movement.

Well, the original point was you and some other AGW opponents zealously calling for the immeidate incarceration of anyone that didn't parrot your viewpoint, but it's nice to see that you've backed away from that now. Another indication of my decisive victory. YES!!!!

[N_Fiddledog]

Nonsense.