"This has nothing to do with the scientific method. This is about protecting debate in the public sphere and I do think it protects it. Consider if you were a climate scientist with a completely impeccable record. How willing would you be to make some high profile statements on your research, knowing that powerful media interests would immediately start dragging your name through the mud and trying to turn you into a pariah and a magnet for crazies?"

Indeed. Now do you understand how its so hard for those who are skeptical of mainstream climate science to come out of the closet?

Even when it isn't true, they are called shills for the oil industry, slandered, dragged through the mud and marginalized.

If you had a career and a family, would you take that risk?

Climate science isn't being politicized, it has been from the early 1980's.

Indeed. Either that, or they are furiously researching on green public relations sites like DeSmogBlog for ways to attack what I said... or attack me.

Are you talking about alarmists, when they slander scientists that try to publish papers that they dont agree with?
When they call them shills, liars and deniers?

Nothing against vaccines, GMO's, or Darwin.

Next.

And I quite like your ad hominem attacks.

It is indeed hilarious that you would dismiss climateaudit because of your preconceived bias, instead of look at the article, and original study and make up your own mind about the facts.

You're spouting nonsense propaganda and slandering a website in a thread about defamation and slander.

CLIMATEaudit is a blog about climate science (be it skeptical or not) it has nothing to do with Big Tobacco and you know it. There are no BIG tobacco articles on that site.

Calling a Canadian science site a GOP shill, just shows your lack of intelligence and integrity. There is no such thing as the GOP in Canada.

Now, are you going to be a reasonable person and do your own research before spouting your hatred again? Or are you going to go back to sks, or desmogblog to look up a talking point to throw back at me?

Are you trying to associate me to the anti-vaccine movement?

tsk tsk. You really are desperate.

The Video in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Jail for deniers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p...
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03...

Murder:
Comment by Bluecloud
https://twitter.com/RichardTol...
There are many more... some directly from Greenpeace. But I'll let you do your own research.

Death penalty:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.co...

This article was about slander and defamation of character. (which BTW, I did not read the offending articles, but trust that the Canadian judge punished the NP rightfully. I know how much mud slinging is done on both sides, and especially the NP).

So my comments are pretty much on topic. Especially in reply to the anonymous cowards post.

If you have nothing to say about my claims, then I think you should have just shut up. Because it makes you look petty and desperate.

Unless you agree with all the despicable things I attribute to (some) extremists in the alarmist camps.
In that case, you have no defence, so you resorted to insulting me (just like the national post) instead of discussing the actual claims I made.

Bye.

Hottest by 0.02C (Globally) with an error possibility of about 0.1C.

Also the only truly global data sets (satellites) do not rank it as the hottest.

And finally, with a temperature difference of barely 0.05 on average for the last 18 years, the warming is basically nonexistent.

Hi there.

Anything else to say than to insult me?

I havent seen the original articles.

However I agree with your statement. Published false statements against a specific person should be punished.

Too bad it doesnt happen with alarmist media or scientists slander sceptical scientists, call them shills or call for their murder in well respected newspapers.

Nice generalisation there.

It isnt because your bias makes you refuse to read sceptical scientific discussions that they dont exist.
Stop reading media crap or rebuttals by propaganda sites and, just for your educational purposes, read some scientific sceptical sites and make up your own mind.

How the hell are you supposed to tell if you are being told the truth if you will not read the dissenting voices?
Again, DO NOT (except after the fact) read the rebutal blogosphere first. Go to the source, then research others opinions. Or else all you are reading is crapot propaganda with confirmation bias.

so goes for the other way around.

Instead of SKS
Try WUWT, judithcurry and climateaudit

At their own risk, indeed. Many (not all I admit) sceptic scientists have been publishing good solid work "at their own risk", but there is no one there to protect them when they are bullied, harassed, rejected, fired.

The science is hard to get through some folks heads, even many scientists. Confirmation bias exists, on both sides of the debate.

You can take your hurt feelings about duplicity and personal attacks and look in a mirror. Read my first line.

Cherry picking is done all over the place. Especially in climate science and especially by the alarmist side of the debate.

Talking about money, how are those billions of dollars in grant money comparing to a few million dollars budget of sceptical organisations like the heartland institute?

"Passivity"... REALLY!?!?!?!?\
Alarmists and green organisations are DOWN RIGHT AGGRESSIVE. They always have been.
They call for no less than:

- The death penalty
- Jail time for people expressing their opinions
- Murder
- Exploding heads of those who dont tow the line (look at the propaganda video)

And you go and call this law suit the end of passivity? How you people look at yourselves in the mirror everyday shocks me.

You want to talk about lies and downright BAD scientific research, here is a recent example: http://climateaudit.org/2015/0...

Actually I realised, my post was for the Anonymous Coward, not you. :)

I was in agreement with the post you are talking about.

Hence my confusion. Maybe you are set to not see the cowards !!

What hurt?

The fact that you point to a poll on peoples views?

You thinking you have made any kind of a point is quite sad.

Now, can you point to what actually is different in the world because of Al Gores movie?
Except for the fact that we spend billions and billions of dollars on the wrong causes?