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. 

[NeverAgain]

Yes. Forced ignorance should not be tolerated

[Frodo]

Yes. Forced ignorance should not be tolerated

'Forced ignorance'? 

[RI]

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

[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? 

[Goldwater]

lol, no.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If that means we don't have to see Snowguy's bizarre rants anymore, I'm all for it.

[RI]

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.

[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.      

[RFayette]

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.      

If we criminalize this, then we might as well criminalize anti-GMO-ism, anti-vax movements, young-Earth creationism, faith healers, fortune tellers, and a whole bunch of other groups also.  The precedent for such an action would be utterly horrifying.

[Kingpoleon]

Obama, pls drone.

[dead0man]

If you vote yes, you're an asshole....just so you know.  And not the regular kind of asshole that everybody is from time to time.

[NeverAgain]

If you vote yes, you're an asshole....just so you know.  And not the regular kind of asshole that everybody is from time to time.

If you are one of those people that deny a fact proven by all the world's scientists and in the process screw up the last chance we have of saving this planet, you are an asshole. Listen, I am all for civil liberties, but when peoples ignorance infringes on my right or future generations right to live and be free (and not live in a desolate uncontrollable wasteland) that is my business. Call me an asshole, I would rather be an asshole than   be someone that is pushing a dangerous ideology that can and will destroy this planet.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If you vote yes, you're an asshole....just so you know.  And not the regular kind of asshole that everybody is from time to time.

[dead0man]

If you vote yes, you're an asshole....just so you know.  And not the regular kind of asshole that everybody is from time to time.

If you are one of those people that deny a fact proven by all the world's scientists

hyperbole much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe human activity is having an impact on the environment, you'd have to be an idiot or use some weird definitions for some of those words to not believe it.  But statements like the one you just made are insane to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then explain why they are wrong.  Use small words if you must, but shutting down their speech, even if you think they are wrong or lying or whatever, is wrong.  Period.


and again, the left has a problem with free speech.  You use to get it, but since you've put on a suit, you've forgotten the point.

[SWE]

If you vote yes no, you're an asshole....just so you know.  And not the regular kind of asshole that everybody is from time to time.

[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.

[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?  

[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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

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,

[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.

[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.   

[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.

[Wells]

No. People ae entitled to their beliefs, no matter how ignorant or ridiculous.