So you think merely commenting on the do ents 'cons ute civil and possibly criminal offenses'?
It depends on who is commenting and how they are doing so. If someone of prominence comments on them as if they are actual do ents, without the attempt to verify, then yes. I believe liability for damages would apply.
Think about how the media usually frames things. Even when we know someone is guilty of something, they say "alleged."
Context matters.
Hey, it made HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-...b_1289669.html
Lol at zero comments.
EDIT> My bad. "Comments are closed for this entry" -- I wonder why?
Maybe he doesn't want someone to leave a dead rat on his doorstep.
There has already been a Washington Post article linked in the thread several days ago.
Pay attention.
Sounds an awful lot like somebody is paying good money for lawyers.
If I were a multi-trillion dollar industry and was backing various "skeptics", I would not be all that happy if the "skeptics" I funded led a paper trail back to me either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...nCRR_blog.htmlGleick writes that he initially tried to confirm whether this strategy do ent was real. When he couldn’t, he contacted the Heartland Ins ute directly using a fake e-mail account (Heartland has said that Gleick was impersonating a board member). The group then inadvertently sent him a slew of additional fund-raising and budget memos, which Gleick, in turn, forwarded to various blogs and reporters.
Gleick says that this latter batch of internal fund-raising do ents are authentic and unchanged. “I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Ins ute do ents or to the original anonymous communication,” he writes.
A number of journalists, particularly the AP’s Seth Borenstein, have confirmed many of the details in the budget do ents, such as the fact that the Heartland Ins ute is working to set up a climate-skeptic science curriculum for high schools. Most of Heartland’s attempts to dispute mainstream climate science, such as its annual conferences in Washington, are not a secret.
So basically the strategy and fundraising memos were legit, but the guy lied to get them.
Bad on him, but it shows the kinds of nakedly cynical that passes for "climate change skepticism".
I stand by the OP.
Wow...
Searching the le of one of the broken links, I found this:
'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing them now?'
When I said the Oregon Climatologist was fired, he effectively was.
Global Warming Skeptics Shunned
Now rather than firing George Taylor, the governor had his position removed. All who followed the story knew it was because Taylor was a "denier." It would be political suicide to fire him over this disagreement, so the strategic move, was to eliminate the job. There was plenty of local news on the issue.The political climate isn't good for scientists with dissenting views on global warming, leaving some researchers to fear that honest research could be blackballed in favor of promoting a "consensus" view.
A dispute erupted this week in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change.
That view is not in line with the state policy of Oregon to reduce "greenhouse gases," which are considered by many researchers to be the chief cause of global warming.
What do you need to become a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?
Evidently, just a credit card.
https://secure3.convio.net/ucs/site/...nate_lbox.html
If you join with $35 dollars, you get a free mouse pad.
If they plan to seek civil damages in criminal charges against Gleick, I'd say his goose is cooked.
I want that mouse pad.
Scientists resurrect Ice Age plant after 30,000 years in deep freeze
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...ep-freeze.html
...located 125 feet (38 meters) below the present surface in layers containing bones of large mammals, such as mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, bison, horse and deer.
Guess it was a bit warmer back then.
I can't blame you for not wanting the conversation to linger on the fact that a well-funded industry sock-puppet was putting together actively misleading propaganda campaigns.
It is kinda funny the way you and Darrin are so desperately trying to change the subject.
Does the fact that this is so obviously a propaganda machine bother you?
, i am waiting for a link that actually says one of those guys actually got fired. So far we have a link stating that a climatologist was supposedly CONSIDERED being fired with a completely hypothetical cause for something that never happened and a blog by some random guy saying that people should be fired.
What I do not see is any shred of evidence that anyone actually was fired or threatened for being fired much less an individual singled out and threatened. WC the guy you linked doesn't even work for the Oregon state government.
And for s sake Darrin are you able to link something that is not sourced from the Guardian, Koch Foundation or the Heritage Foundation. I actually started clicking on those links and sure enough it was WUWT, Heritage Foundation, your weekly mailer from the Guardian etc.
Some evidence comes out that what is already obviously a oil lobby propaganda machine actually is just that and you pull that .... gmafb
Yeah - I hear the wooly mammoth and wooly rino were tropical animals.
I don't see how stating opinion (commenting) isn't protected by the 1st amendment. You know, the other side doesn't have to like the speech.
smh
I agree with the AGU that climate change is occurring. Has been occuring for the past 4½ billion years.
I guess this goes back to what you want to call propaganda. I followed several of those links, and I find them to be less propaganda type material than anything from the IPCC, which is clearly intent of the AGW scare, regardless of facts.
Beyond .350: Measuring New Thresholds of Global Collapse
Human civilization has had a stable childhood. Over the past 10,000 years, as our ancestors invented agriculture and built cities, the Earth remained relatively stable. The average global temperature fluttered slightly, never lurching towards a greenhouse climate or chilling enough to enter a new Ice Age. The pH of the oceans remained steady, providing the right chemical conditions for coral reefs to grow and invertebrates to build s s. Those species, in turn, helped support a stable food web that provided plenty of fish for us humans to catch. The overall stability of the past 10,000 years may have played a big part in humanity’s explosion.
Now, ironically, civilization has become so powerful that it can reshape the planet itself. “We have become a force to contend with at the global level,” as Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Center in Sweden, puts it. Humans have changed the chemistry of Earth’s oceans, lowering their pH and causing ocean acidification. We are shifting the composition of the atmosphere, raising levels of carbon dioxide higher than they’ve been in at least the past 800,000 years.
A number of scientists have warned in recent years that if we keep pushing the planet this way, we will cause sudden, irreversible damage to the systems that made human civilization possible in the first place. Typically, they’ve just focused on one of these tipping points at a time. But in today’s issue of the journal Nature, Rockstrom and 27 of his fellow environmental scientists argue that we have to conceive of many tipping points at once. They propose that humans must keep the planet in what they call a “safe operating space,” inside of which we can thrive. If we push past the boundaries of that space — by wiping out biodiversity, for example, or diverting too much of the world’s freshwater — we risk catastrophe.
http://www.alternet.org/water/154268...paign=alternet
The new and improved Climate Change -- now with even more tipping points.
That is awfully ironic for someone who claims that climate science doesn't understand climate well enough to be able to predict anything.
That is a sword that cuts both ways, isn't it?
"Our climate is too complext to model accurately because we don't understand it well enough, but I can sure say we understand it well enough to say that all this talk about tipping points is baloney".
Does that about sum up what you are getting at?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
