• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Resistance Getting Organized

Jack Hays said:
I have stated my view and supported it with evidence. You have lied. That's the difference between us.
Click to expand...

You are afraid to wager.


Everyone can see it. Lol
 
Jack Hays said:
Scientists skeptical of the current AGW advocacy campaign and climate hysteria have taken steps to organize their resistance. This should surprise no one.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
Global Climate Intelligence Group founded

[FONT=&]By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The Global Climate Intelligence Group, whose objective is to put the science back into climate science, comprises scientists, professionals and researchers from many nations, has already attracted some 500 signatures for what began life scant weeks ago as the European Climate Declaration. The group, and the declaration, are the brainchild…
Continue reading →

[/FONT][FONT="]. . . The declaration says –[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]There is no climate emergency[/FONT]
[FONT="]A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation. . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...



Yeah. 500 academics (not scientists), politicians and lobbyists. Koch-founded Cato and Heartland Institutes. Oil and gas company members. They say that there is no proof CO2 is a major driver of GW.

Guus Berkhout - Wikipedia

Sure, “put the science back into climate science” from a guy that’s not a scientist leading a bunch of guys that aren’t scientists. You go, Jack!
 
bluesmoke said:
Yeah. 500 academics (not scientists), politicians and lobbyists. Koch-founded Cato and Heartland Institutes. Oil and gas company members. They say that there is no proof CO2 is a major driver of GW.

Guus Berkhout - Wikipedia

Sure, “put the science back into climate science” from a guy that’s not a scientist leading a bunch of guys that aren’t scientists. You go, Jack!
Click to expand...

Looks like a scientist to me.

Berkhout was born in 1940 in Den Helder.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] He studied electrical engineering at Delft University of Technology and obtained his degree in 1963. In 1970 he obtained a PhD cum laude in physics from the same university.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
 
Jack Hays said:
You're the one claiming Oil & gas money is funding this initiative. I say that's a lie. The burden of proof is yours.
Click to expand...

Sure. Just bet me.


Unless you are afraid
 
The unseen danger of declaring fake “climate emergencies”

A declaration of a fake emergency is just like yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre

A couple of days after skeptics were banned by The Conversation, came an article advising how people who do illegal, potentially dangerous things can use the “climate emergency” as a legal defense. Skeptics and scientists might rub their hands with glee, waiting for the climate emergency to be vaporised by any half decent prosecuting lawyer. But that won’t happen — the alleged law breakers don’t have to prove there is a climate emergency, they just have to prove that a reasonable person would think there is. So when East Widgiemooltha declares a “mergency”, that is enough.​
So when a local council succumbs to fashion whims or gets heckled into declaring an emergency it’s effectively encouraging vandals, tyrants, and paranoid eco-terrorists.
Activists are using the climate emergency as a new legal defence to justify law-breaking
Nicole Rogers, Senior lecturer, School of Law and Justice, Southern Cross University
The defence permits law-breaking in circumstances of “sudden or extraordinary emergency” if:
an ordinary person possessing ordinary power of self-control could not reasonably be expected to act otherwise.
​
It’s a version of the common law “necessity defence”, which allows law-breaking to avoid greater harm or irreparable evil. This defence has been argued by climate activists in the US and UK for over a decade.
But unlike the common law defence, the extraordinary emergency defence is only activated by a sudden or extraordinary emergency.
Using climate change as a legal defence worked in the UK in 2008 when Greenpeace protesters painted graffiti on the chimney of a British power station. A jury acquitted them of property damage charges on the basis of necessity.
And earlier this year, another UK jury acquitted Extinction Rebellion founder Roger Hallam and a fellow activist of similar charges. While the judge ruled climate change was irrelevant, the jury was persuaded by the defendants’ argument that their actions were a proportionate response to the climate crisis.
In the US, judges have been largely reluctant to let climate activists use this defence, and no climate activist has yet been acquitted of criminal charges when they do use it.

And if that means that shutting high pressure gas pipeline valves down as a narcissistic stunt, that risks explosions, the “necessity excuse” might help someone avoid a 26 year jail sentence. Nothing says “we approve” quite like not punishing them.
However, in 2018, a US judge downgraded the charges against pipeline protesters to civil infractions and then found them not responsible on the basis of necessity. And, in 2019, “Valve Turner” protester Ken Ward succeeded in having his conviction overturned, on the basis he should have been allowed to argue necessity as a constitutional right.
But framing the “necessity defence” as an “extraordinary emergency defence” in jurisdictions like Queensland allows Australian climate activists to take advantage of the growing acceptance of climate change as emergency.
What they all need (the ABC, The Conversation, etc) is a calm voice reminding them of the 1001 reasons there’s no emergency. Obviously that won’t happen since they just banned calmness. . . .
 
bluesmoke said:
Yeah. 500 academics (not scientists), politicians and lobbyists. Koch-founded Cato and Heartland Institutes. Oil and gas company members. They say that there is no proof CO2 is a major driver of GW.

Guus Berkhout - Wikipedia

Sure, “put the science back into climate science” from a guy that’s not a scientist leading a bunch of guys that aren’t scientists. You go, Jack!
Click to expand...

Reminds me of when cigarettes were deemed good for digestion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom