Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by gbaikie

January 12, 2015, 3:41 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by angech2014

$

0

0

–Don Monfort | January 12, 2015 at 5:48 pm |

This is really getting tedious. Neither Mann nor the terrorists are going to destroy our free society. Has Mann stopped Steyn from talking? Has he Stopped Judith from talking? Has he stopped pokerguy from talking? Get back to us in the unlikely event he wins his lawsuit and we will discuss the likelihood that his victory will destroy our free society.–

As you say, it’s unlikely Mann could win his argument.
If Mann could win his argument, then he doesn’t need lawyers nor would he need to do it in a court setting.

The Hockey Stick has already been shown to be incorrect.
Leaving Mann with the limited capability of only fooling whose have strong desire to believe his nonsense.
I will let wiki explain it:
“One case in point is the strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), which is a lawsuit intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by fear, intimidation and burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such actions are self-evidently vexatious, but are typically frivolous as well in that the plaintiff does not expect, or even intend, to win.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_abuse

---

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

January 12, 2015, 3:49 pm

≫ Next: Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by gbaikie

$

0

0

because he didn’t ask who were most likely to target civilians….

I have mixed feelings about collateral damage when fighting against murderous fanatics, but there is a certain calculus that effectively means that civilians are targeted. I have no idea about the total numbers.

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afpam14-210/part20.htm

Then there is the question of how we, as a society, accepted a military invasion that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in the name of policies where the cost/benefit ratio was highly uncertain.

Interesting how trust in government, wariness about unintended outcomes, concern about expensive government initiatives can be rather…um…er…selective, isn’t it?

Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Joseph

January 12, 2015, 3:50 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

$

0

0

The sooner we get the right market incentives in place the sooner we will be able to provide the power needed to get billions out of poverty and into developed world. We aren't going to do that with fossil fuels because they are limited resources. So if you <b> really </b> want to do something about poverty you would support something like refundable carbon tax to reduce emissions and stimulate demand for renewables.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Peter Davies

January 12, 2015, 3:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by rls

≪ Previous: Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Joseph

$

0

0

Thanks for responding Beth. I enjoyed the way you put your POV across but feel that you and Faustino (and in fact, many of the regular contributors to Judith’s blog) have a somewhat pessimistic view about human nature.

My central point was that cliques seem to be responsible for many of the excesses that have occurred in human history, with the the silent majority looking on and being individually too afraid to do anything about it. But tipping points do occur, when enough was deemed to be enough, and this is the stuff of revolutions.

Not all revolutions have resulted in positive changes but the old orders are swept away and new orders take over. The European reformation certainly assisted in a better uptake of progressive ideas and inventions and this is why they are presently further advanced, culturally and in the equitable treatment of dissidents and the disadvantaged, including minorities. This is not to say that all European nations benefited at the same rate, as we all saw in respect of the Jugoslavs.

The change to the way Islam is practised will not happen anytime soon and probably not in our lifetime, but the average timespans for such socialogical change seem to be in the hundreds of years rather than in the dozens of years, even though, like climate change, the tipping points will come and go relatively suddenly.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by rls

January 12, 2015, 4:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joseph

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Peter Davies

$

0

0

Michael and JCH

OK, slight correction, he didn’t say “invented”. Rather, he said “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet”. Not much difference in my mind.

Regardless, the criticism by his political opponents was related the political campaign, not related to the climate wars. My question is sincere, did the harsh dialogue in the climate wars start in the 1990s?

Regards

Richard

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joseph

January 12, 2015, 4:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by rls

$

0

0

Yep don’t mistake me for Joshua even though we have similar names and generally trust climate scientists. I suspect you don’t trust them..

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Peter Davies

January 12, 2015, 4:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by angech2014

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joseph

$

0

0

True Max-OK, for most commenters here, including yourself.

Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by angech2014

January 12, 2015, 4:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Steven Mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Peter Davies

$

0

0

eadler2 | January 11, 2015
There is a difference between predicted and predicts
“Here is what the IPCC predicts for temperature depending on scenarios of emissions. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5.”
Actually
The worst case scenario for RCP8.5 [emissions increasing} is actually a 7.4 C degree rise in temp from 2046 to 2100, ie 54 years which would be 13.7 C degrees for 100 years. Best case 3 C degrees in 54 years or 6.1 C in 100 years.
What they predicted on average in the past was 0.34 c per decade on average and what they predict now is 0.21 C per decade though they do not actually put that figure up anymore.
It includes a RCP where we all stop existing and producing CO2, not very realistic,

---

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Steven Mosher

January 12, 2015, 4:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on Miskolczi discussion thread by angech2014

$

0

0

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by mosomoso

January 12, 2015, 4:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Ragnaar

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Steven Mosher

$

0

0

Asking me, even rhetorically, if I will side with the assassins (“will you side with the assassins”) is implying plenty, don’t you think?

Fortunately, I don’t have to decide whom I stand with. I stand for ruthless pursuit, prosecution and execution of terrorists. And I don’t even care if they have a point of view. I don’t care what Duke Godfrey or Bohemond did to their forebears. Once they start shooting up a Sydney cafe visited by Squiggle, my three year old grand nephew who likes his posh chocolate, they’re only good for execution. I don’t want disrespect, humiliation or pain for these people. I want their death, that’s all.

Being from Australia, where lame satirists are government funded, I am heartily sick of man-boys and man-boy humour. Here our man-boys would not dare offend Muslims or anybody who might hurt them back, so I admire the courage of Charlie Hebdo. But do I identify with either Charlie’s outlook or its courage? I don’t want to agree with its outlook and I can’t pretend to share its courage.

Buying a copy of Satanic Verses or Charlie Hebdo requires no courage at all. (Reading them requires a very high threshold of boredom.) Openly keeping premises where such publications are produced, displayed or sold requires great courage. It requires more courage than I have or would want to have, since Rushdie and Charbonnier do not speak for me. I speak for me.

In short, I don’t want to buy or read Charlie Hebdo or the Satanic Verses. I DO want to read of the death or life-long imprisonment of the loops who murdered at Charlie Hebdo.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Ragnaar

January 12, 2015, 4:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by mosomoso

$

0

0

To add to yesterday’s enjoyable discussion we have this:
“An “ethic of justice or rights” is based on abstract, impersonal principles, like justice, fairness, equality or authority. People who prefer this style see ethical dilemmas as involving primarily a conflict of rights that can be solved by the impartial application of some general principle.” http://www.lmu.edu/Page23070.aspx That’s pretty much me. Conflict of rights in my case refers to a hierarchy of rights. For instance high up in my hierarchy is, Do not physically harm another. It would generally trump free speech rights. On this thread, I’m trying to apply a general principle to both cases. In Mann’s case some defamation principle is conflicting with the free speech principle. And there may be other principles in play as well. If the decision is clean, one principle will eventually win. Joshua pointed out context. That will change, but we strive for unchanging principles. At the link, the Ethic of justice is compared to the Ethic of care. That might explain some of the disagreements. The Ethic of justice “…seems to fit with a more legalistic approach to life that gives allegiance to some external source of authority.” That’s me again. I’ve spent some time promoting the CPA code of ethics as an example. We are legally bound to it if we want to be a practicing CPA. But I am merely suggesting scientists consider a voluntary code. The Ethic of care “approach is flexible, caring and subjective–appropriately so. It can respond quickly to changing circumstances and is not preoccupied with the idea of setting precedents.” I am not so much in favor of that approach. In my job the hard part can be the gray areas of the tax laws. I don’t want subjective guidance for subjective questions. Gray on gray. No thank you. Take the quick test: http://www.lmu.edu/Page23849.aspx Are you the Ethic justice or the Ethic of care? If the page doesn’t format correctly, try hitting the tab key.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort

January 12, 2015, 4:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Pooh, Dixie

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Ragnaar

$

0

0

Judith, this is how you linked Mann with Charlie:

“Anyone defending the satirists at Charlie should have a tough time defending Michael Mann in his legal war against the satirical writings of Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. It will be interesting to see if Charlie and the defense of satirists changes the dynamics of the Mann vs NRO/CEI/Steyn lawsuits.”

I know about the well-worn “free speech” thread linking Mann and Charlie. That’s pretty weak and it’s not what you actually said. You could logically be interpreted as having implied that the common element is the terrorists attacked Charlie for satire and Mann attacked Steyn et al for satire, and that there is some level of equivalency there, that in both cases there are illegitimate attacks on free speech. Add to that the appearance that you may be using the progressives’ tactic of exploiting a tragedy to score points in a political argument, and you got yourself into a ____storm.

Rational, intelligent , honest people can defend the deceased Charlie’s right to publish juvenile satire and not be killed by terrorists and at the same time defend Mann’s right to the legal recourse of a defamation lawsuit. Not tough at all. Case closed.

Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Pooh, Dixie

January 13, 2015, 1:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Wagathon

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Don Monfort

$

0

0

SmokinFrog, above

I fear you missed something. At stake is “Life (IPAB), Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Opportunity)”

We have seen in recent history that “Progressive” Politics is now bent upon regulating nearly everything, even if it must interpret existing laws in a most expansive manner. Regulation of energy is a political lever. Nuclear Energy is a short lever (~15%). Fossil Fuel is much longer (~80%).

Government by Diktat is Totalitarianism: “Everything which is not forbidden is compulsory.” — T. H. White, The Once and Future King.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Wagathon

January 13, 2015, 1:55 pm

≫ Next: Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by brent

≪ Previous: Comment on My interview with Mrs. Green by Pooh, Dixie

$

0

0

Except in in hundreds of French “no-go” zones?

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by brent

January 13, 2015, 1:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Wagathon

$

0

0

“Roger Revelle, the lead author of the report, was struck by the fact that the human race was returning to the air a significant part of the carbon that had been slowly extracted by plants and buried in sediments during a half billion years of Earth history. ”
snip
“Echoing Revelle’s concern before the American Philosophical Society, I too pondered the significance of returning a half a billion years’ accumulation of carbon to the air ”

Looks more like Mankind recycling an “insignificant” fraction of naturally sequestered carbon.

BURNING BURIED SUNSHINE: HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF
ANCIENT SOLAR ENERGY

http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/02/week-in-review-21/#comment-613886

---

Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Rob Ellison

January 13, 2015, 2:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by pottereaton

≪ Previous: Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by brent

$

0

0

The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.

The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.

http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by pottereaton

January 13, 2015, 2:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by stevepostrel

≪ Previous: Comment on What would Charles Keeling think? Science in spite of politics by Rob Ellison

$

0

0

http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/11/charlie-challenging-free-speech/#comment-663729

@TomC, who wrote:

Look, this was not a good rhetorical strategy on her part. All I’m saying is that there is, on some level, an analogy. In fact, Steyn often makes the point, in a satirical way, by speaking of the “climate mullahs”. McIntyre has also spoken of warmist “jihad”. It works on a satirical level but not on a serious prose level.

I think it was a perfectly reasonable grouping to make. Satire IS serious prose, deadly serious. Judith, on the other hand, in an offhand remark pointed out that the Jihadists and Mann have a similar mission and that if you defend Charlie, you should also defend Steyn and Simberg. Who can disagree with that? Speech suppression is abhorrent no matter how you execute it. As one who has herself been professionally smeared by Mann and who did NOT respond with a lawsuit, she had every right to do so.

You can take Steyn’s satire even further by saying that the climate mullahs come together at the IPCC and issue fatwas and it’s not even a stretch since the Assessment Reports almost have the force of law. They are often the basis of the reams of environmental law and regulation that are being written around the world. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but a lot of fatwas are not either. Because the tactics of Mann et al are so subtle, because people can’t see how despicable the methods being used by the climate mullahs frequently are, because this is made to appear as just another nasty political dispute between warring political factions therefore anything goes, the danger to free speech is even more pronounced than it is by an obvious frontal assault like the one in Paris. People are incensed by a violent attack. They respond more passionately than they would to the kind of below the radar tactics that the climate mullahs use, which they always deny and soft-peddle anyway.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by stevepostrel

January 13, 2015, 2:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by RickA

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by pottereaton

$

0

0

McIntyre is a world-class squash player in his age group. But I get the impression that pursuing Mann’s errors is not the binding constraint on his participation in that sport. More to the point, McIntyre has a much broader interest in the methods of paleoclimate study. He’s kind of a proxy nerd.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by RickA

January 13, 2015, 2:23 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Tom C

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by stevepostrel

$

0

0

Joshua – Mann is bullying by using lawsuits.

Against Ball and against Steyn/Simberg.

Judith is not bullying Mann by using lawsuits.

She merely defended herself against name calling by writing a post.

Perhaps Mann should think about that form of defense against name calling in the future.

Filing a lawsuit which has no prayer of winning makes it crystal clear he is a bully.

In my opinion history will not be kind to Michael Mann.

Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Tom C

January 13, 2015, 2:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Charlie: Challenging free speech by RickA

$

0

0

potter –

I think I meant “literal” in my comment rather than “serious”. Using satiric language signals that the comparison is not literal, even though it might be very serious.

Mann v. Steyn is very serious, maybe not in and of itself, but like all cases, in that it can establish precedent.