Climate change denial against the law? The DOJ thinks maybe it should be.

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought. 

What exactly is the motive here?

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek. 

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown? 

You really are far out there....   

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought. 

What exactly is the motive here?

To silence them.  As if it wasn't enough to marginalize them. 

For what reason?

[Figueira]

I'm with the DOJ on this one. Maybe they should also pursue civil action against people who don't read the article.

Tell me this post (especially the first sentence) was tongue-in-cheek.  

Nope, only the second sentence.

You seriously think that dissenting from the declared orthodoxy is worth a government crackdown?  

You really are far out there....  

OK, at this point it's clear that you're not going to read the article.

It's not punishing random people who don't believe in science; it's punishing fossil fuel companies who knew about it and lied about it. Like this.

Yes, I did read the article.  And if you believe this isn't intended to send a message to the wider climate skeptic community, you are more naive than I thought.  

What exactly is the motive here?

To silence them.  As if it wasn't enough to marginalize them.  

For what reason?

If you are a proponent of man-made climate change who believes the crisis is as dire as you have been led to believe -and you are on a crusade to save the world- then any dissenting voices must therefore be quieted lest they detract from the gravity of the crisis at hand.  

Yes, I do think there are some (see: neveragain) among you who are that crazy.  Including some who hold electoral office.  And that terrifies me.  

I am an opponent of man-made climate change, not a proponent. Also, you haven't really provided any kind of evidence for your claim other than slippery slope. But it makes sense that a climate denier/skeptic/whatever would be using illogical arguments.