Wharfie, when people are dispossessed of their property by act of parliament, it does not necessarily actually dispossess them of said property in a legal sense. For example, many indigenous people who had lost their property have recovered it following legal argument and moral argument and more changes of law when injustices were recognized. Jews dispossessed of property by Germany's Third Reich were found to not be legally dispossessed after all, when the government changed.
It seems reasonable the good Lord Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to deny his dispossession and to continue to claim his property right.
By focusing on his name, the Global Denialists show that yet again, they don't have much of a case. Instead of arguing their case or pointing out faults in Lord Viscount's, they say, "Hey look, he has brown shoes on and everyone knows brown shoes are out of fashion and have been banned by parliament so we should ignore his arguments about CO2".
I know Global Doomster so-called "scientists" think that arguing about shoe and name fashions is a winning argument in "The Science" of CO2, but some people don't think that's the case and therefore question the credentials of so-called "scientists" who argue that shoes and names matter.
"Ignore that gamma ray CLOUD chamber. Look at their shoes!! OMG BROWN!!!! Okay, now back to our regular programme. Please send loads of OPM."
Mqurice |
