A letter and appeal on Climate Change

[mhaze]

I find it telling that you guffaw at the notion of someone threatening a scientists to death because he doesn't like the scientific conclusions.

No, I think some denialists are violent because they threaten people. Is that concept hard for you to understand?

Fantasized? Hardly. Evidence has been provided.

Splendid. You've now still not answered the question posed by Mailman. I certainly agree with him.

I'll repeat it for you.

Originally Posted by mailman
.....violence by anyone against anyone on either side of the argument is out of order. Im pretty sure you and I can agree on this? .....
​

Thanks.

 

[uke2se]

Splendid. You've now still not answered the question posed by Mailman. I certainly agree with him.

I'll repeat it for you.

Originally Posted by mailman [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
.....violence by anyone against anyone on either side of the argument is out of order. Im pretty sure you and I can agree on this? .....
​

Thanks.

Mailman is on my ignore list, so I don't appreciate you quoting his posts to me. The question is laughable, and I have already expressed my outrage over the antics of these denialist thugs. It stands to reason that I would feel the same were the roles reversed. That is not the case, however.

 

[DogB]

The question is laughable, and I have already expressed my outrage over the antics of these denialist thugs. It stands to reason that I would feel the same were the roles reversed. That is not the case, however.

Well, there was this.

The original post is gone but the offending lines are quoted in the replacement.

BTW – Are you an Aussie? I’m curious because of your use of the Clive Hamilton article.

 

[mhaze]

Mailman is on my ignore list, so I don't appreciate you quoting his posts to me. The question is laughable, and I have already expressed my outrage over the antics of these denialist thugs. It stands to reason that I would feel the same were the roles reversed. That is not the case, however.

Ah. But all I've done is quoted the post which prompted you put him on ignore.

Question still unanswered, on to the next subject!

 

[uke2se]

Well, there was this.

The original post is gone but the offending lines are quoted in the replacement.

That's way out of line as well, although it cannot be equated to personal threats.

BTW – Are you an Aussie? I’m curious because of your use of the Clive Hamilton article.

I am a Swede, actually, but I enjoy Australia very much. I've visited there several times, and I have Swedish friends living in Melbourne.

 

[DogB]

That's way out of line as well, although it cannot be equated to personal threats.

"We know where you live"? Sounds a little personal to me.

I am a Swede, actually, but I enjoy Australia very much. I've visited there several times, and I have Swedish friends living in Melbourne.

Cool, then you’ll know that Clive is a prominent green activist and now political candidate. I’m not saying the article is incorrect but let’s face it, it’s the internet, the crazies are everywhere.

He is right about Bolt though, that man is a complete tosspot.

 

[uke2se]

"We know where you live"? Sounds a little personal to me.

But not directed towards a named individual, as opposed to scores of personal emails sent to selected scientists. There's just no comparing the two, even though both are wrong.

Cool, then you’ll know that Clive is a prominent green activist and now political candidate. I’m not saying the article is incorrect but let’s face it, it’s the internet, the crazies are everywhere.

I did not know that. I do know that his article is well sourced, however.

 

[DogB]

But not directed towards a named individual, as opposed to scores of personal emails sent to selected scientists. There's just no comparing the two, even though both are wrong.

Fair point.

I did not know that. I do know that his article is well sourced, however.

Oh sure, I’d be astonished if it wasn’t. I strongly disagree with many of his ideas but I can’t imagine he would directly lie.

 

[mhaze]

But not directed towards a named individual, as opposed to scores of personal emails sent to selected scientists. There's just no comparing the two, even though both are wrong.

I did not know that. I do know that his article is well sourced, however.

Ah...So do you disagree with statements made by front line Warmers regarding violence toward so called "Deniers", then?

• James Cameron (Avatar): Shoot Deniers.
• Dr. Suzuki: Jail Deniers.
• Dr. Hansen: Bring oil execs up on criminal charges.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[uke2se]

Ah...So do you disagree with statements made by front line Warmers regarding violence toward so called "Deniers", then?

[*]James Cameron (Avatar): Shoot Deniers.
[*]Dr. Suzuki: Jail Deniers.

You provide no sources for these, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves. Equating this with sending anonymous death threats to scientists is intellectually dishonest, though, and you know it.

I should add, I agree that some denialists may belong in jail. That's my opinion, and it's not against the law to express it. Nor do I believe Cameron's statement is unlawful, but perhaps someone knows better?

[*]Dr. Hansen: Bring oil execs up on criminal charges.

No source for this either, but since it isn't a threat of any kind, I'm going to agree with it. If Hansen feels that they deserve criminal charges, he has the right to say it as it doesn't violate the law. A personal death threat does.

Again, it's amusing that you attempt to justify anonymous death threats to scientists by bringing up things that can't be equated to that by any rational human being.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

You don't decide what I do or do not post, mhaze.

 

[mhaze]

....some denialists may belong in jail. That's my opinion, and it's not against the law to express it. Nor do I believe Cameron's statement is unlawful, but perhaps someone knows better?....

The distinction which you are drawing is the limits of the first amendment (well in the USA...), specifically Cameron can say "shoot Deniers" in general, without naming any specifically who should be so treated. So in your opinion, that's okay, for Cameron to say that climate Deniers should be shot?

You provide no sources for these, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves. Equating this with sending anonymous death threats to scientists is intellectually dishonest, though, and you know it.....

Actually, I've listed nothing which I don't have sources for. And I've got many others.

You, on the other hand, do not have sources. You have an article by Clive Hamilton in which he has a series of quotes - no dates, times, email reference numbers, recipients. You don't have sources.

Show me some emails with the full headers, and I would then agree with you. But as it is, sorry, you don't have evidence....

....Again, it's amusing that you attempt to justify anonymous death threats to scientists by bringing up things that can't be equated to that by any rational human being.....

Misrepresentation and false equivalence used in this argument.

First, I've specifically said I agreed with Mailman, and am against violence or the threat of it. And that includes the threat of legal violence, such as was used by Suzuki and Hansen.

Second, I've justified nothing and only brought up things that I was genuinely curious what your opinion was about them. And obviously, you recognize that Cameron, Suzuki, and Hansen are major and public players in the games of Warmers.

So it's hard to see what would be wrong with asking such a question.

 

[mhaze]

The distinction which you are drawing is the limits of the first amendment (well in the USA...), specifically Cameron can say "shoot Deniers" in general, without naming any specifically who should be so treated.

You provide no sources for these, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves. Equating this with sending anonymous death threats to scientists is intellectually dishonest, though, and you know it.....

Actually, I've listed nothing which I don't have sources for. And I've got many others.

You, on the other hand, do not have sources. You have an article by Clive Hamilton in which he has a series of quotes - no dates, times, email reference numbers, recipients. You don't have sources.

Show me some emails with the full headers, and I would then agree with you. But as it is, sorry, you don't have evidence....

....Again, it's amusing that you attempt to justify anonymous death threats to scientists by bringing up things that can't be equated to that by any rational human being.....

Misrepresentation and false equivalence used in this argument.

First, I've specifically said I agreed with Mailman, and am against violence or the threat of it. And that includes the threat of legal violence, such as was used by Suzuki and Hansen.

Second, I've justified nothing and only brought up things that I was genuinely curious what your opinion was about them. And obviously, you recognize they are major public players in the games of Warmers.

So it's hard to see what would be wrong with asking such a question.

 

[uke2se]

The distinction which you are drawing is the limits of the first amendment (well in the USA...), specifically Cameron can say "shoot Deniers" in general, without naming any specifically who should be so treated. So in your opinion, that's okay, for Cameron to say that climate Deniers should be shot?

No, in my opinion it's not ok. You can't equate it with the denialist death threats, though. That's intellectually dishonest.

Actually, I've listed nothing which I don't have sources for. And I've got many others.

You, on the other hand, do not have sources. You have an article by Clive Hamilton in which he has a series of quotes - no dates, times, email reference numbers, recipients. You don't have sources.

Interesting spin on the situation. As it stands, I have provided a source, which in turn lists sources. You, on the other hand, haven't listed anything. It's interesting that you would try to spin that to mean that you have sources and I don't. It's irrational, but it's interesting.

Show me some emails with the full headers, and I would then agree with you. But as it is, sorry, you don't have evidence....

A criminal investigation is ongoing (you like criminal investigations, don't you, mhaze). I don't have access to the evidence in that investigation. I do have access to the source I've already listed. If you want to refute my claim, go right ahead. Just be sure to present evidence for it, as I have.

Misrepresentation and false equivalence used in this argument.

It is you, mhaze, that are attempting false equivalence.

First, I've specifically said I agreed with Mailman, and am against violence or the threat of it. And that includes the threat of legal violence, such as was used by Suzuki and Hansen.

Neither Hansen's or Suzuki's quotes can be interpreted as threats. If I was to say "Death to the cheese-eaters" would you feel threatened as a cheese-eater? There is a significant different between the denialist death threats against individual scientists and people making blanket statements. One is illegal and highly immoral. The other is expressing one's opinions.

Second, I've justified nothing and only brought up things that I was genuinely curious what your opinion was about them. And obviously, you recognize that Cameron, Suzuki, and Hansen are major and public players in the games of Warmers.

Lol, no. Cameron is a movie director. The other two are scientists. There are no "warmers". There's only those that accept science, and the denialists - those that deny science.

So it's hard to see what would be wrong with asking such a question.

It's the false equivalence that is wrong, mhaze. The fact that you attempt to justify death threats made against scientists by attempting to equate them to things that aren't even in the same ballpark. It's shameful, but then that's what I've come to expect from you.

 

[mhaze]

No, in my opinion it's not ok. You can't equate it with the denialist death threats, though. That's intellectually dishonest.

Interesting spin on the situation. As it stands, I have provided a source, which in turn lists sources. You, on the other hand, haven't listed anything. It's interesting that you would try to spin that to mean that you have sources and I don't. It's irrational, but it's interesting.

You've listed a popular article which really doesn't tell me much. It doesn't tell me who got death threats for example. So unless I missed something, I just fail to be impressed. Oh and the main subject seemed to not be death threats.

It was "Cyber bullying". I didn't see any perps listed, or any complainants.

Regarding the three assertions I made, you will find they easily come up on google.

A criminal investigation is ongoing (you like criminal investigations, don't you, mhaze). ......

No, but if so, then I have no reason to consider the matter further. It's being handled, you see.

 

[mailman]

Hahahaha....

Did you get an answer to that, or did you just get put on ignore?

You know its funny isnt it. The one thing that we can all probably agree on, that violence by anyone because of a difference in opinion is out of order...somehow becomes YET another point to argue over.

And to answer your question...of course Uk has ignored it.

I'll tell you why Warmers won't answer this question. You see, they already think you and those like you are violent because you and those like you are killing tomorrow's children and babies.

Hmmm...I think the left gets off on polar bear snuff movies!

On a serious note, Uk is right though...there is some serious projecting going on but its not in the sense he thinks it is. The real problem here is the left projecting its hatred on the right...sorta like what is going on with the teabag protests where the MSM and the rest of the lefty hemisphere is projecting its hatred on what has been a remarkably peaceful protest movement. Contrast that with the violence carried out by those protesting against the Arizona immigration laws etc.

Regards

Mailman

 

[mailman]

So in essence Uke has no evidence sceptical Mann Made Global Warming (tm) blogs are inciting violence against climate scientists...he takes this as proof that sceptical Mann Made Global Warming (tm) blogs ARE inciting violence...yet when confronted with three very public believers in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) calling for violence against sceptics his response is much like Barry Obama's response to Iranian aggression...non-existent!

Mailman

 

[mhaze]

So in essence Uke has no evidence sceptical Mann Made Global Warming (tm) blogs are inciting violence against climate scientists...he takes this as proof that sceptical Mann Made Global Warming (tm) blogs ARE inciting violence...yet when confronted with three very public believers in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) calling for violence against sceptics his response is much like Barry Obama's response to Iranian aggression...non-existent!

Mailman

What I find interesting is that Uke (assuming I understand him correctly) thinks it's okay for these major figures to say that dissenting scientists should be jailed, oil execs brought up on criminal charges, and deniers should be shot. Technically on freedom of speech he may be right (lots of details govern that) BUT:

Does that mean he's okay with a climate of fear over scientists and their research? An intimidating atmosphere where there is a "right answer" one is expected to produce? (or....else.....).

I think that he is okay with this because "the science is settled". And like Ted Turner said, we're all going to be cannibals in thirty or forty years when the crops die out and the planet is eight or ten degrees hotter.

<Barbeque skills: Essential for survival!>

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You could always, you know - respond to actual comments rather than attack the arguer (it might be a good time to review your membership agreement), or place them on ignore (as you do) or even better, simply leave.

But I agree with mhaze (if I get him right) that for the warmibles, freedom of speech is all well and good as long it is 'rightspeak'. I think Orwell might have been onto something.

 

[mhaze]

You could always, you know - respond to actual comments rather than attack the arguer (it might be a good time to review your membership agreement), or place them on ignore (as you do) or even better, simply leave.

But I agree with mhaze (if I get him right) that for the warmibles, freedom of speech is all well and good as long it is 'rightspeak'. I think Orwell might have been onto something.

But we are trolls in a sense. You see, we keep bringing up Non Right Speak issues. And that's occuring in a thread in which the OP talks reverently about AGW Religion - using terms like Salvation and Redemption.

And in said thread, criminal investigations of possible fraud by Mann et al are scoffed at and ridiculed. They are unneeded. So say Warmers. Permitting a climate of fear and intimidation against skeptics and scientists publishing anti AGW Religion results is okay, though. Cyber bullying against the AGW Team must be vigorously prosecuted. And it's important to allow, even encourage free speech such as "shoot deniers", "jail deniers", etc.

So say warmers.

Obviously, we are trolls.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Interesting.
Am I mistaken in saying there haven't been any "criminal investigations" into fraud - yet?