Gate Keeping is alive and well in Climate Journals and Bloggs...

[Billy_Bob]

You cant make this up... Skeptical (shit) Science is now stooping to character assassination and criminal defamation of renowned scientists simply because they do not agree with Dana Nuttercellie (Nuccitelli) and her AGW lies. Dana may just have met her match as Dr Judith Curry is not one to take this kind of crap lying down.

Dana is a legend in her own mind and nothing more. I suggest that Dana look in the damn mirror as she is one large partisan hack that is in need of a serious legal butt kicking...

Roger Pielke Jr., On SkepSci’s Academic Blacklisting

You can tell that Dana and her ilk are losing the battle and the actual science is kicking her butt... Losing the battle and Dana is coming unhinged... The attempt to create a "blacklist" is nothing less than an attempt to gate keep those who are seen as credible...

 

[Weatherman2020]

You cant make this up... Skeptical (shit) Science is now stooping to character assassination and criminal defamation of renowned scientists simply because they do not agree with Dana Nuttercellie (Nuccitelli) and her AGW lies. Dana may just have met her match as Dr Judith Curry is not one to take this kind of crap lying down.

Dana is a legend in her own mind and nothing more. I suggest that Dana look in the damn mirror as she is one large partisan hack that is in need of a serious legal butt kicking...

Roger Pielke Jr., On SkepSci’s Academic Blacklisting

You can tell that Dana and her ilk are losing the battle and the actual science is kicking her butt... Losing the battle and Dana is coming unhinged... The attempt to create a "blacklist" is nothing less than an attempt to gate keep those who are seen as credible...

When people are ignorant of history, history always repeats.

 

[skookerasbil]

The "science" of climate science is rigged. Always has been.

I mean c'mon now....imagine how liberals would respond to President Trumps cabinet doing an investigation on him.

That's what happened in the East Anglia Climategate investigation.....rigged. Fuckers investigated themselves. Only a bobblehead would consider it legitimate.

Researchers who show up to climate summits with data that doesnt conform with the established narrative are tossed out.

C'mon now......

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Could somebody please shoot Al Gore's plane out of the sky ?

This guy is the biggest con artist of the 20th century.

 

[Steve Case]

Could somebody please shoot Al Gore's plane out of the sky ?

This guy is the biggest con artist of the 20th century.

It seems that Democrats are wanting to provoke a civil war. So far
they've started to ban natural gas hook-ups in several cities around
the country - most in California but a few elsewhere (Cities are
banning natural gas in new homes, citing climate change CBS News)*
I've wondered what a civil war would look like. Shooting Al Gore out
of the sky is part of that vision. I imagine it wouldn't be armies with
tanks and bombers securing territories. Maybe assassination squads.

* I'm not allowed to post links yet.

 

[ReinyDays]

The tide of hysteria is cresting and breaking ... the data is starting to roll in and quash the Alarmists ideals ... just like asteroid attacks ...

AND just like asteroid attacks ... the science itself has greatly prospered ... we did get busy and we did look for, and catalogue, the asteroids ... and today this has opened up new vistas and new research into how our solar system formed ... this is also true for climatology ... I understand these model results are bogus ... but each time we run them we learn something new ... find new avenues to seek answers ...

There's no place in science for shooting people out of the sky ... that's no better than creating blacklists ...

 

[Steve Case]

The tide of hysteria is cresting and breaking ...

A few years ago I thought the tide would turn. OK it eventually will,
but it won't be anytime soon. The other side has propped up a child
messiah to follow, and the press has gotten on board with that in spades.
One of the definitions of hell is to live in interesting times.

 

[ReinyDays]

We still get headlines about an imminent and catastrophic asteroid impact ... one in particular is calculated to have a 0.00000273% chance to hit us in about 60,000 years ... but we can still see the "high water mark" at 0.001% chance we saw back in the early 1990's ... as long as there's people who click, there will be click-bait ...

 

[mamooth]

So, morons are upset because when morons write moron papers, the moron papers get debunked by the smart people. They call that a conspiracy.

Perhaps it is. However, the morons, being morons, don't understand that to normal people, a conspiracy against morons is seen as a _good_ thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, morons are upset because when morons write moron papers, the moron papers get debunked by the smart people. They call that a conspiracy.

Perhaps it is. However, the morons, being morons, don't understand that to normal people, a conspiracy against morons is seen as a _good_ thing.

So, morons are upset because when morons write moron papers, the moron papers get debunked by the smart people.

Yeah, warmers are a trip, eh?

Retraction Note: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition

 

[Crick]

Evening Billy Boy,

There is no such thing as "criminal defamation". Defamation is a tort, not a crime.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Evening Billy Boy,

There is no such thing as "criminal defamation". Defamation is a tort, not a crime.

Oh really? Thats news to me as this is still in US Title Code 45;

45-8-212. Criminal defamation. (1) Defamatory matter is anything that exposes a person or a group, class, or association to hatred, contempt, ridicule, degradation, or disgrace in society or injury to the person's or its business or occupation.
(2) Whoever, with knowledge of its defamatory character, orally, in writing, or by any other means, including by electronic communication, as defined in 45-8-213, communicates any defamatory matter to a third person without the consent of the person defamed commits the offense of criminal defamation and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 6 months in the county jail or a fine of not more than $500, or both.
(3) Violation of subsection (2) is justified if:
(a) the defamatory matter is true;
(b) the communication is absolutely privileged;
(c) the communication consists of fair comment made in good faith with respect to persons participating in matters of public concern;
(d) the communication consists of a fair and true report or a fair summary of any judicial, legislative, or other public or official proceedings; or
(e) the communication is between persons each having an interest or duty with respect to the subject matter of the communication and is made with the purpose to further the interest or duty.
(4) A person may not be convicted on the basis of an oral communication of defamatory matter except upon the testimony of at least two other persons that they heard and understood the oral statement as defamatory or upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.

History: En. 94-8-111 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; R.C.M. 1947, 94-8-111; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 230, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 395, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 344, L. 2003.

 

[Crick]

You're a wee bit out of date Billy Boy. The Supreme Court eliminated criminal defamation in Ashton v Kentucky 1966. See Criminal Libel

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're a wee bit out of date Billy Boy. The Supreme Court eliminated criminal defamation in Ashton v Kentucky 1966. See Criminal Libel

Its in the current active statutes... It is still enforced... Enjoy!

 

[ReinyDays]

You're a wee bit out of date Billy Boy. The Supreme Court eliminated criminal defamation in Ashton v Kentucky 1966. See Criminal Libel

Your citation clearly states Ashton vs. Kentucky eliminated COMMON LAW criminal defamation ... that's different than WRITTEN LAW ... you're a lawyer, you should have known this ... My understanding is that here in Oregon, common law is inadmissible in a court of law ... that has to be a written law violation or there's no violation of law ...

You should read your citations before you make any claims based on that ... otherwise you look like an idiot ...

 

[mamooth]

Meanwhile, back in reality, it's actually the deniers who are in a Stalinst censorship frenzy. Every one of the deniers here loves it. You won't find any of them condemning it, because they all know they have to censor in order to have any hope of implementing their Stalinist utopia.

Silencing Science Tracker | Sabin Center for Climate Change Law