Here it is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573&q=Scam+of +the+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

If you are concerned about the erosion of democratic freedoms you should be more concerned about real laws passed in NZ that weaken our privacy and civil liberties and make us more into a police state:
http://www.greens.org.nz/campaigns/sis/#Features

Speaking in world wide terms not just New Zealand. There are democracies further from home.

Lighten up.

so a court case taking place in another country, with a group of plantiffs none of whom are from NZ, taking a film production company from England to court.

How is this relevant to the state of NZ’s democracy?

…but the affront stipulated is both serious and personal enough to have the offender hauled into court and damages assessed which would be less satisfying but more likely for me. So no Gerrit, I probably wouldn’t take the law into my own hands, I could use the money…. and while the temptation is definitely there I’d probably use that OTHER New York turn of phrase, to wit “see you in court”

They already said what you’d say, but THEY don’t have a film or a forum. THEY aren’t publishers. Consider the imbalance of power here…. that’s why the laws exist as they do.

Duncan, You can’t damage my professional or personal reputation by advocating something. You’d have to lie… and if it is just a bit of talk it isn’t a big deal. If someone publishes lies in a newspaper however, it becomes a horse that reflects a rather different wavelength of light.

Actually, my understanding was 2 out of 8 boffins, but I haven’t watched the film. He surely didn’t have a couple of hundred… he didn’t highlight any such number and couldn’t possibly take the time to interview that many at length. Wouldn’t work as a film anyway. Of course I don’t think you’d be able to find two hundred serious dissenters in the planet’s climate science community… but I haven’t counted. Might be more than 8.

respectfully
BJ

It seems that everything I post is censored these days, actually I am not sure why I am even bothering to write this as it will never be posted and the propaganda Nazi’s at frogblog are not that keen on hearing a differing opinion.

frogmaster writes: well actually BB, all your posts are being flagged by our spam blocker Akismet, and not by our completely separate moderation blocker. As I have explained before we have no control over what Akismet flags, we only control the list of terms (these are mainly different swear words) in the moderation function.

I note that all of your “test” posts are being blocked by Akismet. I can only assume that you have managed to get your name listed as “spam” by Akismet, which truely is divine justice.

Nice. Were you at the anti-GE rally in Auckland a few years back? The only time I’ve ever been assaulted in public was by an anti-GE protester, and now I’m wondering whether it was you.

Anyhow, I agree that it’s entirely reasonable that the scientists who think they’ve been misrepresented be allowed to bring their case before court. But, last I heard, that was one or two out of the couple of hundred who were bringing suit. A very small minority may have been misrepresented; the vast majority are attempting to censor the movie.

“Me, I’d probably see to it that the guy became a bit accident prone… ”

Suggesting that you would take the law into their own hands if someone wronged you?

Mmmmmmm……….

Dont know how that goes in a democratic, free speech country.

Bit like sensorship, second road to dictatorship. Or mafia type control by the mobs.

Seriously, I can see your point BJ. Dont know if in a free society, unless you prove slander in court, there is much that can be done to prevent questionable material from raising the ire.

Except either refuting or totally ignoring it.

If I were a scientist misquoted in the DVD would simply say “I was misrepresented and quoted out of context” No more no less.

What they are doing is fuelling the fire.

I DO Understand… however, the Scientists who’s reputations and views are being misrepresented have an affirmative right to sue this guy AND prevent further publication.

The original publication did in fact occur and the ( I am not sure which legal term applies, I will use “slander” ) slander WAS published. I am pretty sure you can’t sue like this until there is publication. It is not prior censorship.

But I think there is no requirement to allow a slander to continue to be published if slander can be proven, and there is a requirement to cease further publication of the damaging falsehoods.

As far as the full content goes, having not seen it all I cannot comment. The fact that the first 30 seconds were already false did not give me much confidence even though some of the scientific arguments by some of those scientists are plausible (if improbable) alternatives to AGW theory. You can get those arguments by reading what those scientists have written and said about it. What this director gives us however, is not an accurate representation of their views. The scientists themselves are telling you this by their actions in court.

I don’t know if the scientists will even win in the court.

Me, I’d probably see to it that the guy became a bit accident prone…

Both the scientists involved can publish all the papers they wish telling people what their actual positions are. In scientific circles they may survive this, but the fact that their names were used in this to promote what they regard as false positions will of a certainty survive them if it is published even more broadly.

I don’t regard it as censorship if it is a matter of slander.

If the SOB could present straight arguments without dragging other people’s names into it like he did he can publish whatever he pleases. Then of course, he’d be like all the other half-baked lunatics who don’t KNOW anything and want everyone to know it.

The scientific arguments are something else though, and those get examined more carefully. The problem is that the presentation of alternative theories does not disprove a theory, they merely offer more for experimentation to challenge and disprove one of them… and one of them ultimately does go. The fact that AGW has been around a longish time, and has survived repeated challenges, indicates that it is a pretty good theory. Still theory, but a daunting thing now.

http://www.321energy.com/editorials/chefurka/chefurka051207.html

Especially in light of some of our other problems :0 !!

respectfully
BJ

My argument is not with the content of the DVD but my right to see it. Once I have seen it I may well come to the same conclusion as you however by banning it I have only your word for it that it is bad.

Would prefer to make up my own mind. That is why the scientest must not get it banned even for their own sakes.

Builds a level of “what have you to hide” mistrust.

Take the creator and publisher to court for misrepresentation sure, but banning is counter productive, an insult to my free speech rights and an affront to my ability to make up my own mind.

Sensorship is the first stop on a road to dictatorial power, something I think you and I would agree on must never happen.