THE TRILLION-POUND TRADE IN CARBON!

Libel should be easier in the UK since the proof is on the accused. However, I am more concerned about lying about facts rather than specific people, although it brings their work into disrepute.

One of the most blatant cases is Ian Plimer who knows full well that only a small fraction of CO2 emanates from volcanoes, but has written that it exceeds mans contribution. Since he is a geologist he knows damn well this is a lie. It keeps being repeated time and time again by junk sites such as this http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3770/Aussie-geologist-Plimer-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming
It's like a virus.
http://www.desmogblog.com/ian-plimer-exposed-fraud

Most climate change lies are more subtle and take the form of 'it was hotter in the 1930s' knowing the reader will think it refers to the entire earth rather than the landmass of the USA

The Deniers have got this off to an art, and are beating the scientists hands down in terms of PR. Truth is useless against clearly worded deceit.
 
Last edited:
Most climate change lies are more subtle and take the form of 'it was hotter in the 1930s' knowing the reader will think it refers to the entire earth rather than the landmass of the USA

The Deniers have got this off to an art, and are beating the scientists hands down in terms of PR. Truth is useless against clearly worded deceit.

For 'The Deniers' translation read 'all those who do not agree with Perseus on this issue'.

For "Truth is useless" translation read " Wherever and whenever freedom of the Press is suppressed"
 
Last edited:
No, not me. I'm saying all those which do not agree with the scientific consensus which was established back in the 90s. This is exactly the same as saying there is a consensus which believe man went to the moon or the Holocaust was a genuine event. There are some people who don't believe in these. Shall we treat them seriously and give a platform to voice their views and base the future of the human race on their judgement?

You are evading the question, at what point should free speech NOT be allowed? Do you believe in Libel?
 
Last edited:
Personally I agree with parts of both sides, because there are segments of truth in saying we humans cause global warming, also there is truth in saying that its a Natural occurrence, However I DO believe that the earth will fix itself, like it always has in the past, it might be after we are all dead and gone, but the earth WILL go on.
 
You are evading the question, at what point should free speech NOT be allowed? Do you believe in Libel?
Libel is an absolute fact of life in these litigious times, and the fact that it is never used by those in support of your argument is a good indication that they know their case would never even get to see the inside of a courtroom.

It would be impossible to bring a charge of Libel against someone because they choose not to believe something that is no more than a widely accepted "theory" and published evidence in support of their "theory".

You are altogether to wound up about this and starting to overlook basic facts, such as the above.

In short you can't see the forest for the trees. It think it's time for you to step back and take a breath of fresh air.
 
Last edited:
No, not me. I'm saying all those which do not agree with the scientific consensus which was established back in the 90s. This is exactly the same as saying there is a consensus which believe man went to the moon or the Holocaust was a genuine event. There are some people who don't believe in these. Shall we treat them seriously and give a platform to voice their views and base the future of the human race on their judgement?

You are evading the question, at what point should free speech NOT be allowed? Do you believe in Libel?


Yes, you. You are spouting again; I am evading nothing; you wish to evade all criticism. You wish to do away with newspapers which publish anything which does not align with your own self-important views. You are also voicing here precisely the concerns your opponents have regarding you own particular stand. You abuse newspapers who present other sides to the argument. You attempt to trample on all reservations. I find your comparisons untenable and odious.

Everything must be questioned and weighed, don't attempt to bluster and abuse those who do not accept all of what you may be prepared to accept.

I have had quite enough of your abuse; it is bloody freezing, we have seas starting to freeze here; we have temperatures here today which match the south pole; I am still reserving judgement, still chilling out on this issue; take a pill.
 
Last edited:
Personally I agree with parts of both sides, because there are segments of truth in saying we humans cause global warming, also there is truth in saying that its a Natural occurrence, However I DO believe that the earth will fix itself, like it always has in the past, it might be after we are all dead and gone, but the earth WILL go on.

I tend to be roughly of the the same opinion, I think it is unrealistic given the population and invasive nature of mankind that we are not having an effect on the environment and climate, how much of an effect I do not know.

I also believe we are capable of making enough changes to allow the earth to reach equilibrium so it isn't all doom and gloom.
 
Last edited:
I tend to be roughly of the the same opinion, I think it is unrealistic given the population and invasive mature of mankind that we are not having an effect on the environment and climate, how much of an effect I do not know.

I also believe we are capable of making enough changes to allow the earth to reach equilibrium so it isn't all doom and gloom.
Hell,... I agree, what happened.

As in all things, we are going to have to adapt. Adapt our present practices as much as is possible, and adapt to the changes we cannot prevent.

I guess the killer punch line is, "and have the sense to know exactly what to do and when"
 
Personally I agree with parts of both sides, because there are segments of truth in saying we humans cause global warming, also there is truth in saying that its a Natural occurrence, However I DO believe that the earth will fix itself, like it always has in the past, it might be after we are all dead and gone, but the earth WILL go on.

This is not much different than what scientists claim, although the effect of the sun is thought to be quite small now. Do you think they are claiming only greenhouse gases influence climate or they know exactly how much each factor influences climate? Of course Deniers will take this out of context and say this proves the scientists really don't have any idea, and we should wait until they know exactly. This of course effectively means 'business as usual' forever.

Note this ignores shorter term influences which can have a large difference on global climate on a year to year basis such as stratospheric volcanic eruptions and changes in ocean currents such as El Nino. I'm not sure if large scale monthly jet stream variation as we are experiencing at the moment has an effect on global temperatures or not. It may just blow the heat around to different places.

IPCC_2007_Syn_Fig2_4_Forcing_gasses.png
 
Last edited:
I tend to be roughly of the the same opinion, I think it is unrealistic given the population and invasive nature of mankind that we are not having an effect on the environment and climate, how much of an effect I do not know.

I also believe we are capable of making enough changes to allow the earth to reach equilibrium so it isn't all doom and gloom.

I don't see how anyone could argue with that, certainly not me. That's where I am coming from.
 
Back
Top