[N_Fiddledog]

Blah, Blah, Blah with the rhetoric...you know what I mean.

There are existing laws. This guy Hansen is doing suspicious stuff to suggest he may be breaking them. If in the future the evidence becomes even more clear, then yeah the question of whether or not he is breaking the existing law needs to be decided in a court of law. Hansen is no more important than say Martha Stewart before the eyes of the law. He doesn't get a free pass on law breaking, because he's calling himself a scientist.

This is not the same thing as what Suzuki proposes. Suzuki wants to create new laws to imprison scientists and politicians who disagree with him.

[Blue_Nose]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There are existing laws. This guy Hansen is doing suspicious stuff to suggest he may be breaking them. If in the future the evidence becomes even more clear, then yeah the question of whether or not he is breaking the existing law needs to be decided in a court of law. Hansen is no more important than say Martha Stewart before the eyes of the law. He doesn't get a free pass on law breaking, because he's calling himself a scientist.

Please, you could point to any policy maker or government official and pull out some reason to suggest their activities are suspicious. Are we going to send everyone to court based on your vague, arbitrary definition of "suspicious"?

You sound exactly like the 9/11 conspiracy people - they always want people to go to be strung up for not providing them with the answer to every question they can come up with, too.

[Brenda]

Just by reading the article, not the fight over GW or CO2 emissions, I can only draw one conclusion...

OF COURSE global warming will stop. It has always stopped, it will always start again too. Natural curve.

Haven't we all said this for months now?

We are all scientists!

[N_Fiddledog]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

There are existing laws. This guy Hansen is doing suspicious stuff to suggest he may be breaking them. If in the future the evidence becomes even more clear, then yeah the question of whether or not he is breaking the existing law needs to be decided in a court of law. Hansen is no more important than say Martha Stewart before the eyes of the law. He doesn't get a free pass on law breaking, because he's calling himself a scientist.

Please, you could point to any policy maker or government official and pull out some reason to suggest their activities are suspicious. Are we going to send everyone to court based on your vague, arbitrary definition of "suspicious"?

You sound exactly like the 9/11 conspiracy people - they always want people to go to be strung up for not providing them with the answer to every question they can come up with, too.

Nonsense these are known facts not even Hansen disputes.

He does not release his full methodology.

He is employed by the public purse.

Even Hansen has had to admit at least one case where his methodology was incorrect.

Hansen has received money from funds other than those for which he is employed.

A conspiracy states a misdeed has taken place and bases it's support on controversial information. That's not what I'm saying. What I allege is the above is simply suspicious, but based on that I'm prepared to accept the possibility actual legal infractions may have taken place. My point is if the evidence ever becomes so strong actual lawbreaking has occurred under existing statutes a legal proceeding is justified, then yeah, he should be prosecuted, scientist, or not.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Blah, Blah, Blah with the rhetoric...you know what I mean.

There are existing laws. This guy Hansen is doing suspicious stuff to suggest he may be breaking them. If in the future the evidence becomes even more clear, then yeah the question of whether or not he is breaking the existing law needs to be decided in a court of law. Hansen is no more important than say Martha Stewart before the eyes of the law. He doesn't get a free pass on law breaking, because he's calling himself a scientist.

This is not the same thing as what Suzuki proposes. Suzuki wants to create new laws to imprison scientists and politicians who disagree with him.

I think the freedom to speak freely is more than rhetoric. I realize that neo-conservatives don't attach much importance to the concept, but many others do.

If Hansen is breaking existing laws (and I think, given the court's latitude on free speech in Canada and the US, that would be quite a biiiiiiig stretch) then I'm sure the AGW opponents would have already had him charged.

Oh, and for the record, Hansen doesn't just call himself a scientist. He is one:

From his wiki entry:

$1:

Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo.

He has also authored or co-authored dozens of peer-reviewed studies.

[N_Fiddledog]

Hansen is accredited as a scientist. He doesn't behave like one. A real scientist wants to release his methodology. He wants it proven correct by the facts. He recognizes skepticism as important to the scientific method.

And even if he is a scientist so what? If he breaks the law, he needs to put before it.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Hansen is accredited as a scientist. He doesn't behave like one. A real scientist wants to release his methodology. He wants it proven correct by the facts. He recognizes skepticism as important to the scientific method.

And even if he is a scientist so what? If he breaks the law, he needs to put before it.

Yes if he breaks the law, he does. But, fortunately, it is not against the law to speak your mind in Canada or the US, so you and your neo-socialist buddies are S.O.L. on that one.

[N_Fiddledog]

Call me names all you want, the fact remains, if it can ever be proven Hansen is producing fraudulent information, he knows he's doing it, and he's profiting from it he needs to be prosecuted.

[PluggyRug]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Oh, and for the record, Hansen doesn't just call himself a scientist. He is one:

From his wiki entry:

$1:

Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo.

He has also authored or co-authored dozens of peer-reviewed studies.

So then he should concentrate on astronomy and physics and leave climate analysis to the experts.

[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

[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.

[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.

[Wally_Sconce]

left wing communes are allowed to exist in a right wing society.

Freemarket economies are not allowed to exist in a communist society.

[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

[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)