Hello futurecurrents: You say "We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people's deaths. It's time to punish the climate-change liars." You also reference this article to support your position: Arrest Climate-Change Deniers http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888 These claims about Man-made climate change/global warming are suppose to be based on science. And science is based on hypotheses which can be proved or disproved by making observations, tests and measurements. Much of science can be readily proven or disproved through direct observation of the results from experiments that provide good data to prove or disprove hypotheses, eg classical physics. For other areas of science such as the man made global warming hypothesis the data is not so clear and scientists do not all agree. When the data is clear scientists change their opinions and we can make decisions based on their findings because their findings are supported by data. Those so called scientists who believe in unprovable hypotheses for example perpetual motion machines are simply ignored. No need to arrest them. They fail science in school and no one hires them to make their silly machines, problem solved. Disagreement over man made global warming is a part of science. If we arrest those who do not agree with the official government approved version of science then we have reduced global warming science to the level of Nazi science or communist science. Hitler opposed what he called "Jewish science" and would have arrested Einstein the "German science" denier if Einstein had not already escaped Germany. The Soviet economist Nikolai Kondratiev who hypothesized an economic economic supercycle pattern called the “Kondratiev wave” was purged by Stalin in 1938. He was purged because his science findings on capitalism did not agree with the official communist theory on capitalism. The Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for advocating the the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view of the solar system which contradicted the Catholic Church's geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system. Galileo was found guilty of heresy. Science should be settled by scientists not by the courts, Nazis, communists, the global warming church or Salem witch trials. For example the below "National Review v. Mann" article describes Michael Mann's attempt to use the courts to enforce his view of global warming science. National Review v. Mann By Bradley A. Benbrook, Stephen M. Duvernay, Ilya Shapiro & Trevor Burrus, August 11, 2014 http://www.cato.org/publications/legal-briefs/national-review-v-mann This idea of arresting people (climate-change liars) who disagree about science is very dangerous and is a direct attack on the first amendment of the US constitution. When you lower a science to that level you will be rubbing shoulders with people responsible for the deaths of millions of people who believed that those who disagree with their version of science should be arrested. Anubis
Hello Anubis, from the article.... Let's make a clear distinction here: I'm not talking about the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, and climate change is a socialist United Nations conspiracy foisted by a Muslim U.S. president on an unwitting public to erode its civil liberties. You all know that man. That man is an idiot. He is too stupid to do anything other than choke the earth's atmosphere a little more with his Mr. Pibb burps and his F-150's gassy exhaust. Few of us believers in climate change can do much more—or less—than he can. Nor am I talking about simple skeptics, particularly the scientists who must constantly hypo-test our existing assumptions about the world in order to check their accuracy. That is part and parcel of the important public policy discussion about what we do next. But there is scientific skepticism... and there is a malicious, profiteering quietist agenda posturing as skepticism. There is uncertainty about whether man-made climate change can be stopped or reversed... and there is the body of purulent pundits, paid sponsors, and corporate grifters who exploit the smallest uncertainty at the edges of a settled science. I'm talking about Rush and his multi-million-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I'm talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. I'm talking about public persons and organizations and corporations for whom denying a fundamental scientific fact is profitable, who encourage the acceleration of an anti-environment course of unregulated consumption and production that, frankly, will screw my son and your children and whatever progeny they manage to have. *************** Then you say...For other areas of science such as the man made global warming hypothesis the data is not so clear and scientists do not all agree. Yes, only 97% of publishing climate scientists do. As far as an article from Cato about Mann. I will give it the respect it deserves. None.
Global Warming is no more than a hypothesis. The word is and has been getting out to the public. It's not science. it's a con. http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...global_warming_and_the_scientific_method.html
Are you going to continue pushing the obviously fabricated 97% figure. It has been proven to be complete nonsense.
Climate change denial is a denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.[1][2] Typically, these attempts take the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.[3][4] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and free market think tanks, often in the United States.[5][6][7][8][9] Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of denialism.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Although there is a scientific consensus that humans are warming the climate system,[17] the politics of global warming combined with some of the debate in popular media has slowed global efforts at preventing future global warming as well as preparing for warming "in the pipeline" due to past emissions. Much of this debate focuses on the economics of global warming. Between 2002 and 2010, conservative billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) via two trusts (Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund) to more than 100 organizations seeking to cast doubt on the science behind climate change.[18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Maybe instead of arresting climate change deniers we should arrest all the liberal a-holes who were burning buildings last night, i wonder how many tons of toxic smoke those idiots dumped into the atmosphere.
Obama Blew $120 Billion on Global Warming | FrontPage ... "much of it on bribes and studies" to keep the scam going
It's less than the amount of methane that you release into the atmosphere with each one of your posts.