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

[mamooth]

If a scientist spends years pushing deliberate documented lies for financial gain, then they'll be like Exxon. As nothing like that has ever gone on with the rational side, those Republican AGs are engaging in blatant political intimidation tactics.

And all the deniers here openly approve of those thug tactics. I've never encountered a denier who wasn't a Stalinist at heart, wanting to use TheParty to silence any dissenters.

It's not surprising. Denialism is an authoritarian cult that sucks in weak-minded wusses who crave authoritarian leaders, so one expects them to all openly praise authoritarian thug tactics.

 

[Ravi]

Why am I not surprised that the OP is a Moonie Times reader.

Are you saying the story never happened? How about a wager? I post 2 other mainstream links to this same material and story and both YOU and the SlothBucket go suck somewhere else.. You take that deal?

Your thread title is a lie. People can go to jail for fraud, but they can't go to jail for their views.

Sucks to be you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why am I not surprised that the OP is a Moonie Times reader.

Are you saying the story never happened? How about a wager? I post 2 other mainstream links to this same material and story and both YOU and the SlothBucket go suck somewhere else.. You take that deal?

Your thread title is a lie. People can go to jail for fraud, but they can't go to jail for their views.

Sucks to be you.

You took a pass on my offer. Obviously you don't want to acknowledge the basis of the story is actually true.

And NOW you reject the concept that ATTEMPTING to litigate against folks for holding certain supportable dissident scientific views leads to jail time. You must believe that all that proposed litigation against skeptics is simply to ANNOY them. In matters of free speech and conscience -- how likely would it be if a fine was imposed to REFUSE to pay that fine? And/or re-litigate? And what happens to people who as a matter of conscience refuse to pay a fine?

It's the threat of FORCE.. And that's the train that the leftist legions were on BEFORE it got pointed out to them that alarmists are just as annoying (and arguably dangerous) as deniers..

 

[flacaltenn]

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

 

[Ravi]

Why am I not surprised that the OP is a Moonie Times reader.

Are you saying the story never happened? How about a wager? I post 2 other mainstream links to this same material and story and both YOU and the SlothBucket go suck somewhere else.. You take that deal?

Your thread title is a lie. People can go to jail for fraud, but they can't go to jail for their views.

Sucks to be you.

You took a pass on my offer. Obviously you don't want to acknowledge the basis of the story is actually true.

And NOW you reject the concept that ATTEMPTING to litigate against folks for holding certain supportable dissident scientific views leads to jail time. You must believe that all that proposed litigation against skeptics is simply to ANNOY them. In matters of free speech and conscience -- how likely would it be if a fine was imposed to REFUSE to pay that fine? And/or re-litigate? And what happens to people who as a matter of conscience refuse to pay a fine?

It's the threat of FORCE.. And that's the train that the leftist legions were on BEFORE it got pointed out to them that alarmists are just as annoying (and arguably dangerous) as deniers..

I have no interest in your bet. If you want to permabann me, you have that power.

You don't have the power to lie and be believed, however, and your thread title is a lie.

And I'm still not surprised that you are a Moonie Times fan.

 

[flacaltenn]

Why am I not surprised that the OP is a Moonie Times reader.

Are you saying the story never happened? How about a wager? I post 2 other mainstream links to this same material and story and both YOU and the SlothBucket go suck somewhere else.. You take that deal?

Your thread title is a lie. People can go to jail for fraud, but they can't go to jail for their views.

Sucks to be you.

You took a pass on my offer. Obviously you don't want to acknowledge the basis of the story is actually true.

And NOW you reject the concept that ATTEMPTING to litigate against folks for holding certain supportable dissident scientific views leads to jail time. You must believe that all that proposed litigation against skeptics is simply to ANNOY them. In matters of free speech and conscience -- how likely would it be if a fine was imposed to REFUSE to pay that fine? And/or re-litigate? And what happens to people who as a matter of conscience refuse to pay a fine?

It's the threat of FORCE.. And that's the train that the leftist legions were on BEFORE it got pointed out to them that alarmists are just as annoying (and arguably dangerous) as deniers..

I have no interest in your bet. If you want to permabann me, you have that power.

You don't have the power to lie and be believed, however, and your thread title is a lie.

And I'm still not surprised that you are a Moonie Times fan.

In times like these you got to read EVERYTHING or you're no better than a mushroom. Doesn't hurt. I once had subscriptions to TheNation, National Review, Mother Jones and Reason all at the same time.

I turned out all right. And I don't harangue folks about their sources --- If it bugs me -- I'll look into it..
You can't trust ANY media in the country today. Thanks to it melding and sinking to the political poo slinging level.

 

[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)))

 

[Wyatt earp]

If a scientist spends years pushing deliberate documented lies for financial gain, then they'll be like Exxon. As nothing like that has ever gone on with the rational side, those Republican AGs are engaging in blatant political intimidation tactics.

And all the deniers here openly approve of those thug tactics. I've never encountered a denier who wasn't a Stalinist at heart, wanting to use TheParty to silence any dissenters.

It's not surprising. Denialism is an authoritarian cult that sucks in weak-minded wusses who crave authoritarian leaders, so one expects them to all openly praise authoritarian thug tactics.

What financial gain on the fossil fuel industry? We already know the financial gain by the AGW cult.

Better put down the crack pipe if you think anything would have been different in the use of petrol.

.

 

[Ravi]

Why am I not surprised that the OP is a Moonie Times reader.

Are you saying the story never happened? How about a wager? I post 2 other mainstream links to this same material and story and both YOU and the SlothBucket go suck somewhere else.. You take that deal?

Your thread title is a lie. People can go to jail for fraud, but they can't go to jail for their views.

Sucks to be you.

You took a pass on my offer. Obviously you don't want to acknowledge the basis of the story is actually true.

And NOW you reject the concept that ATTEMPTING to litigate against folks for holding certain supportable dissident scientific views leads to jail time. You must believe that all that proposed litigation against skeptics is simply to ANNOY them. In matters of free speech and conscience -- how likely would it be if a fine was imposed to REFUSE to pay that fine? And/or re-litigate? And what happens to people who as a matter of conscience refuse to pay a fine?

It's the threat of FORCE.. And that's the train that the leftist legions were on BEFORE it got pointed out to them that alarmists are just as annoying (and arguably dangerous) as deniers..

I have no interest in your bet. If you want to permabann me, you have that power.

You don't have the power to lie and be believed, however, and your thread title is a lie.

And I'm still not surprised that you are a Moonie Times fan.

In times like these you got to read EVERYTHING or you're no better than a mushroom. Doesn't hurt. I once had subscriptions to TheNation, National Review, Mother Jones and Reason all at the same time.

I turned out all right. And I don't harangue folks about their sources --- If it bugs me -- I'll look into it..
You can't trust ANY media in the country today. Thanks to it melding and sinking to the political poo slinging level.

So since you can't trust the media you decided to make up your own lies?

 

[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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If a scientist spends years pushing deliberate documented lies for financial gain,

But enough about Michael Mann....

then they'll be like Exxon. As nothing like that has ever gone on with the rational side, those Republican AGs are engaging in blatant political intimidation tactics.

And all the deniers here openly approve of those thug tactics. I've never encountered a denier who wasn't a Stalinist at heart, wanting to use TheParty to silence any dissenters.

It's not surprising. Denialism is an authoritarian cult that sucks in weak-minded wusses who crave authoritarian leaders, so one expects them to all openly praise authoritarian thug tactics.

That you leftists have finally outlawed speech that is contrary to party goals is unsurprising. Your hatred of civil liberty is overwhelming.

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[jc456]

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.

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

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you saying the story never happened? How about a wager? I post 2 other mainstream links to this same material and story and both YOU and the SlothBucket go suck somewhere else.. You take that deal?

Your thread title is a lie. People can go to jail for fraud, but they can't go to jail for their views.

Sucks to be you.

You took a pass on my offer. Obviously you don't want to acknowledge the basis of the story is actually true.

And NOW you reject the concept that ATTEMPTING to litigate against folks for holding certain supportable dissident scientific views leads to jail time. You must believe that all that proposed litigation against skeptics is simply to ANNOY them. In matters of free speech and conscience -- how likely would it be if a fine was imposed to REFUSE to pay that fine? And/or re-litigate? And what happens to people who as a matter of conscience refuse to pay a fine?

It's the threat of FORCE.. And that's the train that the leftist legions were on BEFORE it got pointed out to them that alarmists are just as annoying (and arguably dangerous) as deniers..

I have no interest in your bet. If you want to permabann me, you have that power.

You don't have the power to lie and be believed, however, and your thread title is a lie.

And I'm still not surprised that you are a Moonie Times fan.

In times like these you got to read EVERYTHING or you're no better than a mushroom. Doesn't hurt. I once had subscriptions to TheNation, National Review, Mother Jones and Reason all at the same time.

I turned out all right. And I don't harangue folks about their sources --- If it bugs me -- I'll look into it..
You can't trust ANY media in the country today. Thanks to it melding and sinking to the political poo slinging level.

So since you can't trust the media you decided to make up your own lies?

Maybe reading comprehension is your issue. I just said -- I READ IT ALL.. And I make up my own mind.. I don't react in an isolation bubble where I'm offended by something reported at Mother Jones.

Same with the 15 years I've put into studying Global Warming. I read ALL of that too.. INCLUDING the comically criminal stuff that appears at the warmer education camps like SkepticalShitScience. com

 

[Ravi]

Your thread title is a lie. People can go to jail for fraud, but they can't go to jail for their views.

Sucks to be you.

You took a pass on my offer. Obviously you don't want to acknowledge the basis of the story is actually true.

And NOW you reject the concept that ATTEMPTING to litigate against folks for holding certain supportable dissident scientific views leads to jail time. You must believe that all that proposed litigation against skeptics is simply to ANNOY them. In matters of free speech and conscience -- how likely would it be if a fine was imposed to REFUSE to pay that fine? And/or re-litigate? And what happens to people who as a matter of conscience refuse to pay a fine?

It's the threat of FORCE.. And that's the train that the leftist legions were on BEFORE it got pointed out to them that alarmists are just as annoying (and arguably dangerous) as deniers..

I have no interest in your bet. If you want to permabann me, you have that power.

You don't have the power to lie and be believed, however, and your thread title is a lie.

And I'm still not surprised that you are a Moonie Times fan.

In times like these you got to read EVERYTHING or you're no better than a mushroom. Doesn't hurt. I once had subscriptions to TheNation, National Review, Mother Jones and Reason all at the same time.

I turned out all right. And I don't harangue folks about their sources --- If it bugs me -- I'll look into it..
You can't trust ANY media in the country today. Thanks to it melding and sinking to the political poo slinging level.

So since you can't trust the media you decided to make up your own lies?

Maybe reading comprehension is your issue. I just said -- I READ IT ALL.. And I make up my own mind.. I don't react in an isolation bubble where I'm offended by something reported at Mother Jones.

Same with the 15 years I've put into studying Global Warming. I read ALL of that too.. INCLUDING the comically criminal stuff that appears at the warmer education camps like SkepticalShitScience. com

I'm talking about your thread title, Twinkie.

 

[mamooth]

Skeptical Science Derangement Syndrome is one of the symptoms of a chronic allergic reaction to any facts that contradict one's political cult dogma.

 

[Ravi]

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

If a scientist spends years pushing deliberate documented lies for financial gain, then they'll be like Exxon. As nothing like that has ever gone on with the rational side, those Republican AGs are engaging in blatant political intimidation tactics.

And all the deniers here openly approve of those thug tactics. I've never encountered a denier who wasn't a Stalinist at heart, wanting to use TheParty to silence any dissenters.

It's not surprising. Denialism is an authoritarian cult that sucks in weak-minded wusses who crave authoritarian leaders, so one expects them to all openly praise authoritarian thug tactics.

Haha....
No peace for Greenpeace



Resolute Forest Products filed a civil RICO suit in a federal district court in Georgia, alleging a pattern of defamatory and fraudulent behavior by Greenpeace and allied organizations. According to the 100-plus-page complaint (andappendix), Greenpeace and its affiliates are a RICO “enterprise” that have waged a deliberately defamatory campaign against Resolute, misrepresenting the company’s practices and environmental record in order to raise funds and promote Greenpeace’s environmentalist agenda:

Volokh Conspiracy newsletter

An independent voice on law and public policy.

The common purpose of the Greenpeace Enterprise was to target Resolute with a disinformation campaign that could be used to fraudulently induce millions of dollars in donations from individual donors and foundations that could be used to fund the salaries of the enterprise members and its leaders, perpetuate more fraudulent fundraising, and expand the campaign to direct attacks on Resolute customers that would provide even more powerful fundraising opportunities. . . .

In perpetuating thisfraudulent scheme, Greenpeace has developed a playbook that is readily recognizable. It identifiesor manufactures a hot-button environmentalissue;disseminates sensational, alarmist, and false claims about impending calamity related to that issue; targets a high-profile company to vilify for the impending calamity, including by staging fake videos, photographs, and other evidence (such as staging animal slaughters by Greenpeace members impersonating others, and misrepresenting ordinary trees that have fallen as “ancient trees” harvested by its targets or photos and videos of one location or event passed off as another); bombards supporters with urgent requests to “DONATE NOW”; and directs extortive demands, tortious interference, and other illegal conduct at its targets and their customers. When Greenpeace’s extortion succeeds, it insists that its target publicly endorse its campaign and lies,which it then uses to drive more donations and attacks

 

[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.