CK,nice spin Chris but again you’ve got nothing so you revert to an attempt to attack my character.There is a reason I prefer to protect my identity Chris,its so zealots like you cant make my or my families life miserable interfering with my business or putting up fake facebook pages or anything else their twisted little minds come up with. And Chris if you now are saying it isn’t going to be catastrophic then what the hell are we talking about?

“And Chris if you now are saying it isn’t going to be catastrophic ”

I have made no claims regarding the level of severity of climate change. I have said I trust the scientific community’s perspective, namely that steps should be taken to mitigate the impacts of climate change. This is what I’m talking about. You have put words in my mouth again and again, call me a zealot, suggest I will attempt to harm your well-being, and you do so behind a pseudonym. Your character doesn’t need to be attacked by me. You’re soiling your reputation just fine all by yourself.

@ Chris Keam #253

“ I have said I trust the scientific community’s perspective”

Just another reason what it is called the Green Religion. Unquestioning faith.

Chris, you don’t get it.

When you disagree with the likes of Bill, gman, higgins etc, you are a paid operative of vision or leftist/socialist/communist/marxist hack or an eco-fascist bent on returning the world to a 12th century state all in a giant global green conspiracy.

But if you question the likes of Bill, gman, higgins etc on their interests or reasons, well they are just concerned citizens.

Maybe we should start the same? Bill, higgins, gman–all part of a right wing conspiracy to pollute the planet and lower taxes so they can cut all social programs and eliminate bike lanes and…oh never mind, it’s too stupid to actually try.

Update,
Subject appears to show signs of agitation and extreme paranoia believed to be caused by his inability to control conversation and set rules on commenting practices that he is unable to enforce. Subject also shows an inability to separate subject of post with commenters and thus obsesses over identities rather than subject matter.
Recommendations,
When approaching subject speak in soft low guttural tones and smile nodding head in agreement while slowly backing away.

@Chris Keam #256

“I question why you are anonymous Bill. I think you have a vested interest.”

Chris, every time you paint yourself into a corner you deflect attention by opening another line of attack. But I’ll play along and I’ll even overlook the “anonymous” issue since other than Roger for the skeptics and yourself for the Warmists, all the other comments on the climate issue have been anonymous so this is just another of your red herrings.

Yes, I do have a vested interest but then again everyone has a vested interest in what happens with energy policy. My interest is not directly tied to any particular source of energy, I just want to see a healthy economy with the greatest opportunity for growth since that is the only way we will be able to meet the financial challenges we face. Large public debts and social entitlement programs can only mean a reduced standard of living unless we grow our economy.

Oh, and I am not backed stopped by either an inheritance or trust fund – can you say the same thing?

MB – please count me in on that disclosure as well. I am amazed at the flack you and CK are willing to endure from many on this blog. Congrats on your courage to do so.

“Oh, and I am not backed stopped by either an inheritance or trust fund – can you say the same thing?”

Bill:

I’ve been a part of the working world since I was ten. I started contributing to the household expenses at age 16 IIRC. Suffice to say no trust fund or inheritance is in my past, present, or future. I hope that answers your question and you’ll accept it at face value. As for your own identity, I’m willing to believe you, but I encourage you to read my comment to MB below, as it explains why I think some people should be compelled to put up their identity or cease accusing others of ulterior motives.

MB:

You can do as choose, but I’d prefer not to be entrusted with your information, in case someone does decide to hack my email, or similar. And I absolutely believe in the value of anonymity when it’s used to protect those who disclose information that’s in the public interest, or allow someone to express their point-of-view. The point is NOT that everyone should use their real name, but rather that those who point to associations and allegiances of un-anonymous posters or public figures and imply self-interest, should be willing to undergo the same scrutiny. Knowing the identity of your accuser is a central tenet of our society.

Thanks Frank – kind words and I appreciate them.

@gman #266

Not “victims” but “Martyrs for the Cause”. Just another reason why it’s called the Green Religion.

@g man, ‘C3’ is not a legitimate science forum and thus Hansen lives on.

It is, however a Republican party forum and a gathering place for the coal lobby

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, this thread is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get. ; )

@Ian S #272

I think you are off base on this one IanS. An individual’s affiliation is a matter of fact and it does not matter if the affiliation is noted by an anonymous poster. Affiliation is a relevant fact if the individual is expressing an opinion as an expert or is referenced as an expert which would tend to give some weight to their opinion. Now if someone, anonymous or not, discounts this opinion only because of this affiliation, it is really just an argument ad hominem and does nothing to discredit the opinion. It goes without saying that an opinion expressed anonymously without facts or reasoning is worth little.

You can be either for or against anonymous comments but I don’t think you can really start making exceptions to either position.

MB
Only an A-hole would post something like this,but you did “:@ Chris K, while I share your frustation with our little cadre of contrarians who misrepresent others statements, who are the first off the block to ridicule, name call and project false assumptions about what their opponents actually think, and who resort to these defence mechanisms when they either cannot produce adequate sources for their outrageous statements or produce laughably amateurish sources with exceedingly biased fusing and motives, I will defend their right to make fools of themselves anonymously.
What drivel….

Thank you for showing how full of yourself you are although your whole deal rests on scary headlines and someone told me so.You have no idea what science is or how it works so why not stop pretending you do. It almost looks like you’re trying to backpedal your selves.

@Bill:

When a person is accusing others (esp. politicians) of various things such as using public policy for private gain, it’s a fairly serious accusation. I don’t think it’s unrealistic for both the reader and the person being targeted for criticism to know who is behind the comments. Esp. when the critic isn’t bringing forward specifics to back the allegations. As I say, it’s a fairly basic right in a free society to know the identity of your accuser. Our society hasn’t kept pace with our technology in this regard, just as once upon a time we printing presses before we had the rules in place to prevent unauthorized reproductions. So, I suppose we should police ourselves until a better solution comes along. Which, for me, means taking ownership of your comments if they impugn someone else’s character or motives. I don’t think it’s unreasonable (although it gets hard when cherished ideals are challenged). They say that a measure of a (wo)man is how they act when no one’s watching. An online pseudonym is the cyber-equivalent. What one says when they are unaccountable says much more about a person than the behaviors they exhibit when social mores are acting as a regulator of their actions. Gman’s screed above is a perfect example. I don’t think he would say that to anyone’s face for fear of consequences, so why should he get a free pass online?

@Chris Keam #277

I know Progressives are expert at twisting logic into a pretzel to make a point but your argument here is so flawed it’s hard to know where to begin.

• A person’s affiliation or financial interest in an issue is a question of fact and it doesn’t matter who calls attention to it. In #175 MB, your new BFF, says “and discover your source is covered in oily fingerprints and has thus no credibility”. This would seem to suggest that the referenced source is financially supported by the oil industry and cannot be trusted. Should MB be censured for anonymously making this claim? I don’t have any problem with it because it is relevant if the source is funded by the oil industry although I disagree that it alone would discredit the source.

• You don’t believe the “right to know the identity of your accuser” is absolute because you give a pass to “those who disclose information that is in the public interest”. So it is ok to disclose information that may be private or even confidential if it is in the public interest and the accused has no moral right to know who accused them yet pointing out an affiliation or financial interest anonymously that is public knowledge is offside. This is reasonable?

• Legal remedies are always available for any allegations of financial impropriety that are not true.

Finally, you comment “So, I suppose we should police ourselves until a better solution comes along”. Are you suggesting that we need a “Progressive Police Force” to regulate discussion on the internet? We don’t need a better solution. Frances Bula determines how this site is governed and that is how it should be in a society that values free speech. If you don’t like the rules, you are free not to comment.

Thought of The Day

“After so many comments, the rhetorical question comes in easy… “Who’s on First?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nti08LWtxJI&feature=related

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

Wrong Marcus Gee whoever you are. really wrong!

Great cities know that making things to pay for the shiny trinkets you like to play with will yield ten fold payback over much less time.

As for gridlock? That’s a function of sprawl that has inflicted cities since speculators became the only game in town . . .