Should the Government Crack Down on Climate Change Skepticism?

[Frodo]

The Justice Department (along with the FBI) is taking the idea seriously, and is mulling over the possibility. 

[Frodo]

Yes. Forced ignorance should not be tolerated

'Forced ignorance'? 

[Frodo]

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

Assuming this story eventually gets mainstream media cred, pursuing legal action certainly qualifies as a 'crackdown' in my book.

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

[Frodo]

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.      

[Frodo]

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.  

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!"

What the hell?  Are you really making a comparison between climate skepticism and racism?  

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?  

[Frodo]

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.