"Sue Us" petition ready to sign

Thanks, Tim!

By the way...

BPL: To add your signature, simply post a comment on the petition page. Hope that helps.

Commenting here lest a comment on Bi's be taken as a signature.

Surely it is rude to say "so sue me" on behalf of someone else. Until I see Gore and Hansen signing I would avoid this.

I appreciate the search for new approaches in general, but not this one.

Michael Tobis, how does urging someone else to sue Gore or Hansen translate into speaking on Gore's "behalf"? I'm speaking on my behalf; that much should be clear.

You can say that the title's wording ("Sue Us" Petition) isn't exactly the most suitable -- and I'll agree -- but that's different from saying that the whole petition itself is "rude".

Totally OT - your charming countryman Tim Blair has come to the attention of a couple so-called "A-List" bloggers (Pandagon and Atrios), over a 31July blog post whose content and "logic" will come as no surprise to you.

Just an fyi, and not even worthy enough to sully the comments in the newer item you just posted. (Seeing the ol' Timster mentioned at one of my primary haunts reminded me I hadn't been over here in a while...)

Keep on keepin' on.

I am sorry, I don't think you can possibly invite A to sue B without B really not liking it very much. The invititation is not yours to proffer.

How about if I did this.

Me to huge angry drunk idiot: If you're so tough why don't you go prove it to Frank Bi behind the pub?

Tobis:

Except, the inactivists have repeatedly threatened to sue Gore and Hansen specifically, they've repeatedly shouted this from the rooftops, and in all probability Gore and Hansen already know about that. And besides -- why am I explaining this again -- I'm not "extending" any "invitation" on Gore or Hansen's "behalf".

Seriously, are you saying that this guy is also extending an "invitation" which isn't his to extend? As far as I can see, the only visible difference between him and me is that we're on different sides of the 'debate'. Does this one difference immediately mean that I'm extending an "invitation" while he's not?

I still don't understand your worry.

I really don't like "Sue US" at all, it must be sue them.

I, for instance, in addition to being a "serial killer type" like "the Unabomber" and one of the "10 reasons not to believe in global warming" (along with obscure bloggers al gore and james hansen), often DEFAME skeptics by calling them denialists. It would relieve the boredom if one of them sued me for it. I might sign such a "bring em on!" petition, really.

Hansen and Gore have better things to do than waste time in court with gibbons.

Well, it all seems to make sense to some fairly prominent Australians, but it still seems incoherent and rude to me.

I find Frank's "they do it too" argument ironic to say the least, and unconvincing as well.

Public controversies that play out in court rather than in legislatures are an American specialty, but in the long run it often doesn't work out well. Sometimes it doesn't work out in the short run either; how lawyers think is pretty inscrutable after all. So even if Gore and Hansen were to agree to this ploy, it would have risks associated with it.

Finally, while I disagree with Marion about some things, I heartily agree about Hansen and Gore and gibbons.

Tobis:

> I find Frank's "they do it too" argument ironic to say the least

It's not a "they do it too" argument. You'll agree that it's perfectly reasonable for an AGW denier to sue Gore and Hansen. Why then is it suddenly "rude" for an AGW proponent to do the same? I still don't get your worry.

> So even if Gore and Hansen were to agree to this ploy, it would have risks associated with it.

So what's the perfectly wonderful method to get cap-and-trade implemented in the US that has absolutely no risk whatsoever? If there were such a method we'd have seen it by now.

s/to sue/to ask Coleman to sue/

bi - IJI:

To take it seriously for a minute, unlike, say, holocaust deniers like David Irving, who really was crushed by his failed "Oscar Wilde" suit against Deborah Lipstadt, the denialist machine could fail and lose money suing James Hansen in particular, but even Al Gore, and count it good. SLAPPs and nuisance suits are a particular tool of authoritarian movements, as anyone who's run afoul of, e.g., Scientology can tell you.

Also:

Just as we need to move to changing our lifestyles, energy sources, and commitment to out-breeding each other, we also need to change to a "slip past" vs. a "confront" mentality with bogus antagonists, whether paid or simply cultist.

I now believe that has to become an actual project. I routinely urge media outlets to never give denialists a second of time or an inch of print if they can avoid it.

Things like the worth of the precautionary principle or what we owe future generations CAN be debated in public, and often in short segments. So can general issues like how to handle statistics in an accurate and valuable way or describe sometimes interacting exponential curves.

Issues like the actual mechanisms of change in warming in the atmosphere, or determining how much warming is in the pipe at any given moment CANNOT. If we say, right now, that issues of complex systems and their science are not suitable fodder for a 1 hour debate between an economist from the Heritage Foundation and a climate scientist from NASA, or what have you, lines can be drawn so we can debate mitigation and adaptation and energy and economic issues.

Part of the movement has to include never being ashamed to say either that time of a broadcast, say, or the size of an op-ed column is too small to adequately discuss fundamental scientific points or that you wish to leave some discussions up to people with expertise and education sufficient to carry them out.

It's true that us ignoring them won't solve this. But us getting media outlets to ignore them when they aren't paying for the time will go some way towards solving it.

Marion Delgado:

Again, for what it's worth, I think the inactivists' will not take up the challenge to sue Gore and Hansen. (If they wanted to launch SLAPP, they'd have done so long ago.)

However, I think the inactivists will continue to talk about suing.

It seems that Monckton hasn't received the memo:

> Have I got a deal for you?

> Monkton was just on National Radio. The Roy Green Show.
> The offer was made YET AGAIN, to setup a nationally broadcast debate between Monkton and ANY Climate Expert.

> Roy Green Will Set it up and you can have National Exposure.
Ian? VJ? Frank? Any Takers?

> Just e-mail Roy.Green@corusent.com and start digging up your arguments.

> This is Legit. Don't chicken out like Gore has done for a year now.

My reply:

> I thought the petition text was clear enough:

> "4. to acknowledge that all requests to Gore or Hansen to participate in 'debates' on global warming can and should be rightfully ignored -- as such debates are invariably pointless and inconsequential, and will only serve to distract from the truly important debates to take places in the courts of law and the chambers of parliament worldwide;"

> No more useless 'debates'. Either Monckton sues, or he shuts up. It's simple.

Oddly, that invitation to debate was posted by the only inactivist to sign your petition (Gary Williams). One can see how sincere he was, signing a petition with article 4 in it and then inviting someone to debate mudwrestle Monckton.

Brian D:

> signing a petition with article 4 in it and then inviting someone to debate mudwrestle Monckton.

Heheheh.

Well, no matter. Right now I'm thinking maybe I (or someone who's not me) should send an e-mail to Roy Green about the petition (but I've not yet done that because I still don't know whether Monckton did, in fact, make a debate offer on the talk show).