The question comes back: What
kind of evidence counts?
Not exact matches
It is a question not
of whether to consider the historical context, but rather
of what
counts as historical
evidence and
of what
kinds of possibilities one will allow for in using the
evidence to re-create the historical situation.
Some
of that would
count as
evidence of AGW, especially if it's the
kind of impact that is somehow contingent on human - causation.
Climategate showed nothing
of the
kind, except to people who are already so deluded that they think partial sentences, taken out
of context and grossly misinterpreted,
count as
evidence.
Accused went to cottage
of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's
evidence that there was some
kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one
count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term
of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04
of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed
evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's
evidence, trial judge was entitled to reject accused's
evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.
Accused went to cottage
of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's
evidence that there was some
kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one
count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term
of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04
of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against sentence was allowed — Trial judge erred in concluding that discharge was not appropriate in circumstances, especially given conclusion that accused did not deliberately attempt to injure victim — Trial judge found that there was no need for either specific deterrence or general deterrence; prime concern was need for denunciation
of her conduct — Section 730
of Criminal Code permits discharge in cases
of this nature, provided that it was in best interest
of accused and not contrary to public interest — Accused was responsible individual with no record whatsoever, she held position as counsellor and social worker for 25 years — Trial judge did not find that conviction would definitely affect her employment, but possibility existed, and such conviction would necessarily result in criminal record — There was no likelihood
of re-offending — Conditional discharge would not be contrary to public interest.
Accused went to cottage
of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's
evidence that there was some
kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one
count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term
of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04
of Criminal Code — Accused appealed against order to provide DNA sample — Appeal allowed — Order was issued to destroy DNA sample that was taken — Trial judge erred in failing to exercise discretion not to order DNA sample — Accused was first time offender, in circumstances that resulted in serious injuries, but with no intention
of causing those injuries — Accused had otherwise been exemplary citizen, and likelihood
of re-offending was remote.