Should the Government Crack Down on Climate Change Skepticism?

[Figueira]

Stop spreading lies, Frodo.

[Figueira]

To clarify, the DOJ is targeting the fossil fuel industry which has intentionally lied about climate change, thereby killing millions of people and destroying entire countries, not people in general with suicidal environmental views.

Define "crack down" and "climate change skepticism" first.

And as to the second, is that a serious question?  

Yes, as there are many different levels of "climate change skepticism" ranging from "the earth isn't warming" to "the warming isn't human-made" to "it is human-made but is temporary/not a serious threat/possibly beneficial" to "it is a threat but not worth fighting economically" etc.

Well then I am using the broad and expansive definition that applies to anyone who doesn't believe that human beings are the main culprits of the warming we have seen since the industrial revolution, especially in the last few decades, and who believe that we do not have to re-order our entire society and economy to fight it.  And who do not believe that this warming is unprecedented.      

What is it with this view that climate deniers have that saying "The climate has always been changing" is remotely controversial or that it somehow proves their point? It's like saying "Racism has always existed, therefore Donald Trump will never be President!"

Also, I love how the same person who criticized Atlas members for daring to contradict Larry Sabato at such a young age is now claiming that we need to question the vast majority of scientists because reasons.

[Figueira]

To clarify, the DOJ is targeting the fossil fuel industry which has intentionally lied about climate change, thereby killing millions of people and destroying entire countries, not people in general with suicidal environmental views.

It typically begins with the least sympathetic characters.  

"Won't anyone please think of the oil companies"? Really?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And as to the second, is that a serious question?  
[/quote]

Yes, as there are many different levels of "climate change skepticism" ranging from "the earth isn't warming" to "the warming isn't human-made" to "it is human-made but is temporary/not a serious threat/possibly beneficial" to "it is a threat but not worth fighting economically" etc.
[/quote]

Well then I am using the broad and expansive definition that applies to anyone who doesn't believe that human beings are the main culprits of the warming we have seen since the industrial revolution, especially in the last few decades, and who believe that we do not have to re-order our entire society and economy to fight it.  And who do not believe that this warming is unprecedented.      
[/quote]

What is it with this view that climate deniers have that saying "The climate has always been changing" is remotely controversial or that it somehow proves their point? It's like saying "Racism has always existed, therefore Donald Trump will never be President!"[/quote]

What the hell?  Are you really making a comparison between climate skepticism and racism?[/quote]

Uh, no? I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I was saying that just because something has been going on for a long time, doesn't mean it can't take a sudden and dangerous turn. And it's not like previous climate changes have been great for all living species.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you must have a long memory.  I don't even remember making that post.  Is this from ten years ago or so? [/quote]  

The idea that anonymous posters in their teens and twenties think they know more and better than leading pundits and pollsters is laughable indeed.  

But anonymous posters clearly know more than pretty much all climate scientists.

[Figueira]

To clarify, the DOJ is targeting the fossil fuel industry which has intentionally lied about climate change, thereby killing millions of people

Lol. Connecting murder to this through abstract studies is foolish. According to noted gay liberal European climatologist Bjorn Lomborg, the same argument that "global warming is murdering people because of increased temperatures" also shows that global warming is also saving the lives of people due to decreased risk of cold exposure.

"In the U.S. about 9,000 people die from heat each year but 144,000 die from cold."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-overheated-climate-alarm-1459984226

Now this doesn't mean global warming is good or anything, but the knee-jerk lefty mentality of: "My cause is moral, black and white, and if you disagree you are an EVIL MURDERER duh duh duh!" is neither an intelligent position, nor one helpful to your cause,

I was referring to natural disasters, famines, terrorism, etc., not just heat waves. And a lot of the issues are going to be in the future.

And I wasn't accusing the average climate denier of anything. Just the fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it in order to get even richer.

[Figueira]

Stop spreading lies, Frodo.

It is hardly a lie if we follow the logic of this proposed civil suit -after all, why stop with fossil fuel companies?  Why not eventually go after everyone else who is a climate skeptic, and is in a position of responsibility? Even if the attempt fails legally, it would succeed at its ultimate objective.  And regardless of your position on man-made climate change, that prospect should be spine-chilling.  

That is if you care about the First Amendment, of course.   

I still don't understand the basis for this conspiracy theory.