We're all going to jail for Climate Change Views..

[flacaltenn]

Don't get me wrong.. NEITHER side has a legal case here. It's just so deliciously ironic --- I couldn't resist..

So you feel the feds had no legal case against the tobacco Industry? History says otherwise.

If you say the cases are different, tell everyone how. After all, in both cases, corporations engaged in a sustained deliberate propaganda campaign to deny the science that their own documents agreed was correct.

After that, tell us how that's similar to climate science.

They had no case. Up until the 60s PHYSICIANS were prescribing cigarettes for various lung issues or delivering drugs with tobacco smoking.

YOU engaged in a continuous LIBEL against me for all of my views and observations. Can I sue you?

Exxon was MORE scientifically correct in their GW predictions than the WHOLE of Climate science. Bet you haven't read that "smoking gun" internal memo.. It was BRILLIANT science without the fear and hype. Try suing them and watch the hilarity when that hits the press.

 

[Crick]

There is a difference between holding a view - any view - and actively committing fraud against the public. Exxon-Mobil has committed a fraud against the public. If you think some main stream climate scientist has done the same, feel free to contact your local law enforcement and do what you can to get them indicted.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Don't get me wrong.. NEITHER side has a legal case here. It's just so deliciously ironic --- I couldn't resist..

So you feel the feds had no legal case against the tobacco Industry? History says otherwise.

If you say the cases are different, tell everyone how. After all, in both cases, corporations engaged in a sustained deliberate propaganda campaign to deny the science that their own documents agreed was correct.

After that, tell us how that's similar to climate science.

How the fuck are they the same?
Where are the billboards, commercials,print media ????

Again would using petrol the past 30 years have been any different?


.

 

[Ravi]

And what is this cranky deal about banning people? You losing THAT badly here?

How about you tell us how YOU feel about prosecuting people for their considered views and opinion?

(((That'll never happen)))

You got a little melty so I was helping you out. Not only is it wrong to arrest people for their views and opinion, it is also unconstitutional to do so. It's not going to happen. Your title is BS.

Well, maybe if Trump is elected it will happen.

http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652

In June, I took note of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-R.I.) op-ed “urg[ing] the U.S. Department of Justice to consider filing a racketeering suit against the oil and coal industries for having promoted wrongful thinking on climate change, with the activities of ‘conservative policy’ groups an apparent target of the investigation as well.”

I pointed out that this was a significant step toward criminalizing policy differences and using litigation and government enforcement to punish opponents in public debate, and meshed with an existing fishing-expedition investigation of climate-skeptic scholarship by Whitehouse and other Democrats on Capitol Hill.

The Global Warming Racket: Nice Work If You Can Get It

There is another side of this that is rarely heard, though, and that's the story of who's funding the alarmists. In many cases, the government is paying for the research that concludes we are overheating the planet. It's the outcome that politicians and bureaucrats want, so they keep funding more of the same. It's been said, quite credibly, "The dirty secret is that global warming is driven more by the search for funding than the search for scientific truth." And it was, in fact, the Delaware state climatologist who said, "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."

So woe unto the scientists who don't hold what is truly the Democratic Party line. No research grants for them.

Let's track back now a few weeks and dig up the story about the group of academics who have asked the White House to prosecute skeptical organizations and corporations under federal RICO statutes, laws intended to cut down on racketeering enterprises run by organized crime. Who are these people who would criminalize free academic thought? Well, one happens to be Jagadish Shukla, a professor at George Mason University who, according to one lawmaker, "has reportedly received $63 million from taxpayers since 2001" to fund his own nonprofit, the Institute of Global Environment and Society.

Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.

Bill Nye says that we should throw "climate deniers" in jail. | RedState
YouTube channel, cfact, sat down with [Bill] Nye [the Science Guy] and at some point Marc Morano asked the celebrity in a lab coat if the idea being passed around by climate change activists to throw skeptics in jail isn't too extreme.

“We’ll see what happens, was it appropriate to jail the guys at Enron?” responded Nye. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?”

Robert Kennedy Jr., Aspiring Tyrant

Blissfully unaware of how hot the irony burned, Robert Kennedy Jr. yesterday took to a public protest to rail avidly in favor of censorship. The United States government, Kennedy lamented in an interview with Climate Depot, is not permitted by law to “punish” or to imprison those who disagree with him — and this, he proposed, is a problem of existential proportions. Were he to have his way, Kennedy admitted, he would cheer the prosecution of a host of “treasonous” figures — among them a number of unspecified “politicians”; those bêtes noires of the global Left, Kansas’s own Koch Brothers; “the oil industry and the Republican echo chamber”; and, for good measure, anybody else whose estimation of the threat posed by fossil fuels has provoked them into “selling out the public trust.” Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.”


Here is Bernie Sanders' climate plan

“Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet,” the plan states. But it hasn’t been solved because “a small subsection of the one percent are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action.”

Sanders’ plans says he will “bring climate deniers to justice,” citing the example of his recent call for the the Department of Justice to investigate Exxonmobil over allegations it suppressed climate science.


70% of Climate Believers Say Deniers Should Be Prosecuted

Global warming advocates are calling for the prosecution of groups who disagree with them, and New York State has taken it a step further by investigating Exxon Mobil for refusing to play ball with the popular scientific theory.

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% favor such prosecutions. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

TL;dr

Can you tell me in your own words why you lied in your thread title?

 

[flacaltenn]

There is a difference between holding a view - any view - and actively committing fraud against the public. Exxon-Mobil has committed a fraud against the public. If you think some main stream climate scientist has done the same, feel free to contact your local law enforcement and do what you can to get them indicted.

What FRAUD did they create? Did they say GW never existed? NO -- they did not. Why don't you go read that internal research memo and see how much BETTER the Exxon scientists nailed the predictions on Climate Change. Could have saved us $BILLs in research if we just hired them in the 1st place Bullwinky..

 

[flacaltenn]

Already did sweetnips..You're blowing off your mouth and not reading a damn thing.
What did I say about conscience and not paying fines??

 

[Crick]

Exxon-Mobil has been operating a disinformation campaign for years now. They are defrauding the public precisely as the tobacco companies did.

 

[flacaltenn]

How'd you like the Kennedy guy or Bernie wanting to bring science skeptics to justice?

Or the Rasmussen poll that shows about 28% of your leftist buds DEFENDING that concept?

That's why this thread and it's title are funny..

 

[flacaltenn]

Exxon-Mobil has been operating a disinformation campaign for years now. They are defrauding the public precisely as the tobacco companies did.

How can they be spewing misinformation if the key evidence is actually ACCURATE BRILLIANT projections of the actual GW effects? You got a billboard? Key executives spouting off? Whatzyugotz?

 

[Crick]

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort

 

[flacaltenn]

And what is this cranky deal about banning people? You losing THAT badly here?

How about you tell us how YOU feel about prosecuting people for their considered views and opinion?

(((That'll never happen)))

You got a little melty so I was helping you out. Not only is it wrong to arrest people for their views and opinion, it is also unconstitutional to do so. It's not going to happen. Your title is BS.

Well, maybe if Trump is elected it will happen.

http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652

In June, I took note of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s (D-R.I.) op-ed “urg[ing] the U.S. Department of Justice to consider filing a racketeering suit against the oil and coal industries for having promoted wrongful thinking on climate change, with the activities of ‘conservative policy’ groups an apparent target of the investigation as well.”

I pointed out that this was a significant step toward criminalizing policy differences and using litigation and government enforcement to punish opponents in public debate, and meshed with an existing fishing-expedition investigation of climate-skeptic scholarship by Whitehouse and other Democrats on Capitol Hill.

The Global Warming Racket: Nice Work If You Can Get It

There is another side of this that is rarely heard, though, and that's the story of who's funding the alarmists. In many cases, the government is paying for the research that concludes we are overheating the planet. It's the outcome that politicians and bureaucrats want, so they keep funding more of the same. It's been said, quite credibly, "The dirty secret is that global warming is driven more by the search for funding than the search for scientific truth." And it was, in fact, the Delaware state climatologist who said, "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."

So woe unto the scientists who don't hold what is truly the Democratic Party line. No research grants for them.

Let's track back now a few weeks and dig up the story about the group of academics who have asked the White House to prosecute skeptical organizations and corporations under federal RICO statutes, laws intended to cut down on racketeering enterprises run by organized crime. Who are these people who would criminalize free academic thought? Well, one happens to be Jagadish Shukla, a professor at George Mason University who, according to one lawmaker, "has reportedly received $63 million from taxpayers since 2001" to fund his own nonprofit, the Institute of Global Environment and Society.

Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.

At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.

Bill Nye says that we should throw "climate deniers" in jail. | RedState
YouTube channel, cfact, sat down with [Bill] Nye [the Science Guy] and at some point Marc Morano asked the celebrity in a lab coat if the idea being passed around by climate change activists to throw skeptics in jail isn't too extreme.

“We’ll see what happens, was it appropriate to jail the guys at Enron?” responded Nye. “Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive?”

Robert Kennedy Jr., Aspiring Tyrant

Blissfully unaware of how hot the irony burned, Robert Kennedy Jr. yesterday took to a public protest to rail avidly in favor of censorship. The United States government, Kennedy lamented in an interview with Climate Depot, is not permitted by law to “punish” or to imprison those who disagree with him — and this, he proposed, is a problem of existential proportions. Were he to have his way, Kennedy admitted, he would cheer the prosecution of a host of “treasonous” figures — among them a number of unspecified “politicians”; those bêtes noires of the global Left, Kansas’s own Koch Brothers; “the oil industry and the Republican echo chamber”; and, for good measure, anybody else whose estimation of the threat posed by fossil fuels has provoked them into “selling out the public trust.” Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense — and they ought to be serving time for it.”


Here is Bernie Sanders' climate plan

“Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet,” the plan states. But it hasn’t been solved because “a small subsection of the one percent are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action.”

Sanders’ plans says he will “bring climate deniers to justice,” citing the example of his recent call for the the Department of Justice to investigate Exxonmobil over allegations it suppressed climate science.


70% of Climate Believers Say Deniers Should Be Prosecuted

Global warming advocates are calling for the prosecution of groups who disagree with them, and New York State has taken it a step further by investigating Exxon Mobil for refusing to play ball with the popular scientific theory.

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% favor such prosecutions. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

TL;dr

Can you tell me in your own words why you lied in your thread title?

Welll there's your fucking handicap. TL:dr indicates someone that shouldn't be even ATTEMPTING climate change or science topics.. Too much time the FZ is your problem.

 

[jc456]

I've never read the case, but what is it that the tobacco industry did that pulled them into court?

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be technical, the courts never ruled against the Tobacco Industry, as they settled out-of-court before a ruling.

So not guilty of anything

 

[jc456]

I'm just gonna say right now, if you buy land in Floriduh you are an idiot.

Tell that to the million idiots then! Hahahaha

 

[Crick]

You're confusing what was said in internal communication and what was pushed by a heavily funded disinforrmation campaign

 

[Shrimpbox]

Global warming and cigarettes are appl s and oranges. Cigarettes killed people. Unless you consider droughts, floods, storms, and tornados to only happen because of global warming(the idiots take). What is the benefit of a longer growing season? And why couldn't th guy who sold his house in Miami because al gore said it would be underwater sue al gore.

There was a flourishing civilization in the sw us a millennial ago and then it just disappeared overnight. What's to blame for that? So far the extreme predictions have not come true. That is a fact. How about anyone living in the us giving just one example of how their quality of life has diminished because of global warming, besides your blood pressure going up just reading about it.

 

[mamooth]

There was a flourishing civilization in the sw us a millennial ago and then it just disappeared overnight. What's to blame for that?

Changing climate, most likely, persistent drought and high temperatures. So, it illustrates the threat of global warming, how it can affect civilizations.

The model predictions have been spot on correct. The real predictions have come true. Actual scientists know this, and only the badly misinformed think otherwise.

 

[Shrimpbox]

8 Highly Inconvenient Facts for Al Gore 10 Years After His Infamous Movie

I could paste hundreds of articles like this. since you r fuse to accept facts that you disagree with let me ask again, how about anyone living in the us giving me an example of how their quality of life has been diminished by global warming.

And of course I am only a dumb conservative, but if you claim the Indians disappeared because of global warming one thousand years ago doesn't that blow your man caused global warming all to hell?

You can't fix stupid. Might help to get the hairball out of your brain..

 

[Kyle Connor]

Trump says Climate Change is Crap. Hillary says it's critical that we handle Climate change.

My views got thrashed in a conversation for claiming Global warming to be real.
People claim Global Warming to be a hoax.
Scientists arguing about it being real base most of their evidence on the interpretation of the change in the levels of gases in the atmosphere and the ocean. The actual warming of temperature is something they say they can document, but the primary evidence is drawn from detecting what precedes a temperature rise – the change, and effect of atmospheric gases on the Earth’s environment.
I chanced upon few global warming essays and research papers and it's no hoax. There's a rise in sea level, ocean temperatures, Earth's average temperature, Ocean Acidification and shrinking glaciers that cannot be denied.

 

[jc456]

Trump says Climate Change is Crap. Hillary says it's critical that we handle Climate change.

My views got thrashed in a conversation for claiming Global warming to be real.
People claim Global Warming to be a hoax.
Scientists arguing about it being real base most of their evidence on the interpretation of the change in the levels of gases in the atmosphere and the ocean. The actual warming of temperature is something they say they can document, but the primary evidence is drawn from detecting what precedes a temperature rise – the change, and effect of atmospheric gases on the Earth’s environment.
I chanced upon few global warming essays and research papers and it's no hoax. There's a rise in sea level, ocean temperatures, Earth's average temperature, Ocean Acidification and shrinking glaciers that cannot be denied.

There is a rise? From what water sources?

 

[jc456]

Trump says Climate Change is Crap. Hillary says it's critical that we handle Climate change.

My views got thrashed in a conversation for claiming Global warming to be real.
People claim Global Warming to be a hoax.
Scientists arguing about it being real base most of their evidence on the interpretation of the change in the levels of gases in the atmosphere and the ocean. The actual warming of temperature is something they say they can document, but the primary evidence is drawn from detecting what precedes a temperature rise – the change, and effect of atmospheric gases on the Earth’s environment.
I chanced upon few global warming essays and research papers and it's no hoax. There's a rise in sea level, ocean temperatures, Earth's average temperature, Ocean Acidification and shrinking glaciers that cannot be denied.

Ever hear of hydrologic cycle?