1 - 10 Next
we're not anarchists, John. we all recognize a certain MINIMAL amount of sound regulation & oversight is a good thing, for the same reason sports have referees- nobody wants a free-for-all, survival-of-the-most-ruthless society. but today's overarching, micro-managing govt has gone WAAAAAY too far.
are you really that willfully obtuse, or just that g***amned stupid?
yep, been saying that since this mess began. bureaucracies ignore court orders. real people in jail don't.
it is a huge WASTE OF TIME to issue edicts to a vast bureaucracy. a judge has to single out a few high-ranking officials and hold them personally responsible, including an extremely credible threat of jail time for contempt of court. when Lois & her buddies start having to communicate thru their attorneys while they cool their heels in the county lock-up, things will start coming to light in a hurry. until then they're all laughing at us.
not to mention his proxy temp data gleaned from the growth rings of 3, count 'em, THREE, trees. not 300. not 3,000. 3. it is to laugh.
sorry, Kev, but if these charlatans really had the inarguable science on their side they'd be throwing the unimpeachable data & methodologies in our collective faces and telling us to suck on it. decades of hiding data, rigging computer programs, blackballing dissenters, etc., can only lead an honest person to believe they're hiding something- a BIG something. but you warmistas go right on guzzling the kool-aid...
the court can't do that without at least giving the scientific evidence a fair hearing.
Fed- there's a principle in civil law known as "spoliation". basically, it holds that any missing evidence- i.e. suspected shredded documents, deleted computer files, etc.- is automatically presumed to be at its most damaging to the party trying to pull the 'dog ate my homework' trick. it exists to force parties to cough up whatever they have and let the chips fall where they may, rather than face the certain punishment of spoliation.
once upon a time that would have been considered reductio ad absurdum...
exactly. for years Big Climate has resisted the undoubtedly burning urge to sue its critics into silence because, unlike criminal law, civil law cuts both ways. i would LOVE to see Mann, et. al. try the 'dog ate my homework' defense when it comes to explaining their data, methodologies, computer models, etc. if this looks like it's headed to court, i'm stocking up on popcorn.
1 - 10 Next