Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Well, there’s nothing intimidating nor contemptuous about your comments. [sarcasm]
FWIW: A few narrow categories of speech are not protected (under the U.S. First Amendment) from restrictions, including: incitement, defamation*, fraud*, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.
* Defamatory lies (which are called “libel” if written and “slander” if spoken), lying under oath, and fraud may be punished. In some instances, even negligent factual errors may lead to lawsuits. Such exceptions, however, extend only to factual falsehoods; expression of opinion may not be punished even if the opinion is broadly seen as morally wrong.
IIRC, defamation lied (pun intended) at the heart of Mann's lawsuit(s?).

I haven't looked into all the drama/lawsuits/sordid details of the Mann/Steyn dispute, but thought Gord presented a good synopsis of US defamation law here. The 1st Amendment only applies to govt restrictions on speech so maybe not in play in the case (unless Mann's public univ. is also being sued). Given his notoriety, Mann may also be considered a "public figure" which provides additional legal protections to defendants in defamation suits. It's a private civil action (afaik) so doubtful anyone's going to jail.

Whether it's Mann or Ridd, the underlying issue boils down to intolerance for contrary opinions, so none of this is healthy. Such matters should be decided within the science and not the courts, to the extent they can that is. If science cannot resolve them, then why do people think lawyers wearing black robes can?

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2949346]
Whether it's Mann or Ridd, the underlying issue boils down to intolerance for contrary opinions, so none of this is healthy. /QUOTE]

The Introduction of the judgement by Vastas, specifically says otherwise.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

2. Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/v.../2019/997.html

[Exile]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

The “follow the money” position goes both ways. No doubt that there are some people pushing some bad science. But the thing about science is that it can be tested and retested.

Wouldn’t businesses be hurt if additional red tape is added because of the universal acceptance of MMGW? Seems like there is a reasonable number of people who’d benefit from an overall acceptance that Global warming is not even happening.

In order for a MMGW conspiracy to work you’d need the majority of the scientific community, global organizations, even countries in on it.

I get that there is probably more research dollars flowing toward the study of finding Man made global warming sources but it doesn’t fully hold water that the other side is as shut out as it’s being suggested here.

It’s not like the people doing the research getting really rich off the scheme. Some might be, but again that goes both ways. Not sure I see it.

Others differ, but I don't really see how "conspiracy" fits. Besides, it's all too often used by partisans & diehards to attack legitimate skepticism. Any rhetoric that distorts the actual state of the science is a disservice to the science and to the public. The weight of scientific opinion certainly lies with MMGW being a significant threat, but legitimate skepticism remains. But that skepticism is not getting out to the public through anything but highly partisan mechanisms, so it's exacerbating political polarization. Whichever way it ultimately gets decided (or not), I think science itself has already been the main casualty.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by JC Reefer

The “follow the money” position goes both ways. No doubt that there are some people pushing some bad science. But the thing about science is that it can be tested and retested.

Wouldn’t businesses be hurt if additional red tape is added because of the universal acceptance of MMGW? Seems like there is a reasonable number of people who’d benefit from an overall acceptance that Global warming is not even happening.

In order for a MMGW conspiracy to work you’d need the majority of the scientific community, global organizations, even countries in on it.

I get that there is probably more research dollars flowing toward the study of finding Man made global warming sources but it doesn’t fully hold water that the other side is as shut out as it’s being suggested here.

It’s not like the people doing the research getting really rich off the scheme. Some might be, but again that goes both ways. Not sure I see it.

the whole problem with the science is they are bound by the terms of reference . Which tells them exactly what and how they are to Pursue in their studies.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949358]

Originally Posted by Exile

Whether it's Mann or Ridd, the underlying issue boils down to intolerance for contrary opinions, so none of this is healthy. /QUOTE]

The Introduction of the judgement by Vastas, specifically says otherwise.



Ridd v James Cook University [2019] FCCA 997 (16 April 2019)

You already made your (superficial) point by parsing the court's ruling here, to which I responded here. We already know how much you like to either denigrate or ignore facts & opinions which differ from your own, but if you're going to respond to one the least you can do is read it.

Here ya go (post #934):

My words: Although the ruling was ostensibly only about Ridd's employment contract, the clause (Enterprise Agreement) and the Univ.'s Code of Conduct, both of which the Univ. relied on for the termination, necessarily implicated (contractual) rights of intellectual freedom. As the court explained, for example, here:

The court's words: 296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth. [Emphasis mine]

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2949371]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You already made your (superficial) point by parsing the court's ruling here, to which I responded here. We already know how much you like to either denigrate or ignore facts & opinions which differ from your own, but if you're going to respond to one the least you can do is read it.

Here ya go (post #934):

My words: Although the ruling was ostensibly only about Ridd's employment contract, the clause (Enterprise Agreement) and the Univ.'s Code of Conduct, both of which the Univ. relied on for the termination, necessarily implicated (contractual) rights of intellectual freedom. As the court explained, for example, here:

The court's words: 296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth. [Emphasis mine]

We shall await the appeal.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

the whole problem with the science is they are bound by the terms of reference . Which tells them exactly what and how they are to Pursue in their studies.

Huge strawman.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the IPCC does discuss natural forcings. As the IPCC does not conduct research, they rely on science which also discusses natural forcings.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Huge strawman.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the IPCC does discuss natural forcings. As the IPCC does not conduct research, they rely on science which also discusses natural forcings.

now days they will allow the natural forcings to be studied but if you put much in your conclusions I bet you wouldn't get published .

And we are cooling . It is all due to the sun.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Huge strawman.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the IPCC does discuss natural forcings. As the IPCC does not conduct research, they rely on science which also discusses natural forcings.

Of course they do. How could they not given their conclusion that humans are responsible for a significant amount of the warming? What do you think the rest of it is? They could only dismiss natural forcings if their conclusion was that humans were responsible for all of the warming. The latter is the view you like to promote, and have suggested -- without evidence -- that it is not a minority view. But apparently it is, since the IPCC purports to represent the majority view. One doesn't always need citations & links to apply basic logic.

The huge strawman is the distortion you're trying to create by equating the IPCC's "discussion" of natural forcings with the amount of research that's actually being done to uncover whether natural forcings play a greater role. These are completely separate issues (for which I'm sure you're well aware).

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949378]

Originally Posted by Exile

We shall await the appeal.

Yes, but given the level of concern over academic freedom & free speech this case has attracted all over the world, I'm pretty sure the court of public opinion has already ruled.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

now days they will allow the natural forcings to be studied but if you put much in your conclusions I bet you wouldn't get published .

How did this get published?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Originally Posted by newhaul

And we are cooling . It is all due to the sun.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

The huge strawman is the distortion [jack is ] trying to create by equating the IPCC's "discussion" of natural forcings with the amount of research that's actually being done to uncover whether natural forcings play a greater role. These are completely separate issues (for which I'm sure you're well aware).

What makes you think that scientists haven't considered "natural sources"?

Do you not think that a natural forcing capable of increasing CO2 by 10% or more would stick out like a sore thumb?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The huge strawman is the distortion you're trying to create by equating the IPCC's "discussion" of natural forcings with the amount of research that's actually being done to uncover whether natural forcings play a greater role. These are completely separate issues (for which I'm sure you're well aware).

OK - show me the scientific research on natural forcings.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How did this get published?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

easy while this paper is basically astrophysics it gives a nod to MMGWC

, which is found to steadily increasing since the Maunder minimum (e.g. recovering from the mini ice age). Although, it is not clear yet if this trend in the terrestrial temperature and solar irradiance is caused directly by the increased solar activity itself or by some other factors of the solar-terrestrial interaction in the whole solar system and human activities

This is buried down in the report .
Next

Lastly why the buddist symbol for consciousness and energy ?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Lastly why the buddist symbol for consciousness and energy ?

It is the symbol for "om", mantra.

"It is all due to the sun." is the mantra of the Cult of Ra of which you are an adherent.