Climate Scientist: Denial Should be a Criminal Offense

[Weatherman2020]

Because we all know that's the way science works....... No comment from Galileo yet.

Dr Jarrod Gilbert: Why climate denial should be a criminal offence - Opinion - NZ Herald News

 

[Wyatt earp]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

 

[daws101]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

EnviroMarxism at is finest

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Promoting this wealth redistribution scam should be criminal

 

[daws101]

EnviroMarxism at is finest

The god will take care of it myth in action.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

EnviroMarxism at is finest

The god will take care of it myth in action.

The God of the 2 Decade Pause you want to make go away by adjusting the data?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

You stupid...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, the climate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

Slander is not covered by the 1st Amendment

 

[Weatherman2020]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

You stupid...a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, the climate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

And the lemming sheep bobble their heads in agreement at whatever Big Brother tells them.

 

[daws101]

Lay out a little bait and all the denier roaches come running.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

Slander is not covered by the 1st Amendment

He didnt say for slander he said for libel. Which he cannot do, first and he didnt say for slander he said for not being nice.

Yeah, Constitution!

 

[daws101]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

It's you clowns that posted the percentage.
Your denial of fact is an endless loop .

 

[Wyatt earp]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

It's you clowns that posted the percentage.
Your denial of fact is an endless loop .

It was in the link, which you bothered not to read monkey breath.

 

[daws101]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

It's you clowns that posted the percentage.
Your denial of fact is an endless loop .

It was in the link, which you bothered not to read monkey breath.

Snicker. .

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

"I'm so sick of people who think Bruce Jenner is a woman, telling me that I'm the one who rejects science, just because I don't think raising taxes is a good way to change the weather."

--Christopher Cantwell

 

[Weatherman2020]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

Slander is not covered by the 1st Amendment

He didnt say for slander he said for libel. Which he cannot do, first and he didnt say for slander he said for not being nice.

Yeah, Constitution!

Long live the US Constitution!
Don't you ever get tired of me boxing your ears?
Yes, it is possible for public figures to sue for defamation.

Higher Burdens for Defamation -- Public Officials and Figures

Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.

When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice."

"Actual malice" was defined in a Supreme Court case decided in 1964, Hustler v. Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court reasoned that the United States society had a "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

This meant, according to the Court, that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was made was not an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public figure. According to the Court, actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was not true at the time he made it, or had reckless disregard for whether it was true or not.

Defamation Law: The Basics - FindLaw

 

[jc456]

They sure love to parrot that 97% myth.

You mean fact it's the 3% that buy the myth.

no that's only 75 out of 77 think climate is an issue out of the thousands out there. hmmmmmmm

 

[jc456]

Donald Trump: Sue the press. Fuck the 1st Amendment.

what's the press have to do with any of this?