DOJ Is Considering Whether To "Lynch" Climate Change Deniers"
Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday there have been discussions within the DOJ about pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers.
She added (in my words) that such First Amendment free speech has been referred to the FBI to decide whether they should oppress it or not.
Senate Judiciary Committee member Senator Shelton Whitehouse (D-R.I.) compared the past health danger denials of the tobacco industry to statements made by climate change deniers.
Old Dino has a big fat personal problem with being called a "climate change denier." My view is that the climate has always been changing from way, way before the species of my moniker even walked the earth.
Bet the early humans appreciated global warming during all those ice ages. Wonder if any whack job witch doctors were encouraging the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals to keep those fires a-blazing in order to warm the planet up.
She added (in my words) that such First Amendment free speech has been referred to the FBI to decide whether they should oppress it or not.
Senate Judiciary Committee member Senator Shelton Whitehouse (D-R.I.) compared the past health danger denials of the tobacco industry to statements made by climate change deniers.
Old Dino has a big fat personal problem with being called a "climate change denier." My view is that the climate has always been changing from way, way before the species of my moniker even walked the earth.
Bet the early humans appreciated global warming during all those ice ages. Wonder if any whack job witch doctors were encouraging the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals to keep those fires a-blazing in order to warm the planet up.
In my Alabama neighborhood no one dimmed anything that I could see.
No one here cared about what we were "supposed" to do.
If some libtard in my neighborhood had turned of his lights, everyone here would have thought he had gone to bed.
I took, and keep, a strong stance in regards to another hotly-contested topic. I decided recently to no longer voice my opinion of it online. I've see people ruined - even seeing some wind up dead.
WAIT...I can answer that: It's the SUN SILLY! and I wouldn't throw our your winter woolies if I were you.
Disclose TV interviews Davld DuByne Adapt 2030
Mini ice age 2015-2035. Warns of climate change in the next year or so. He is claiming that soon we will have rapid cooling and he makes a very reasonable factual interpretation of past data.
The data (weather history) he examines corresponds with Sun activity and the gas giant lining up and sandwiching the Earth as the planets orbit the Sun.
I am glad that he was freely able to speak his conclusions and back up his prognosis.
Why ?
So I can learn from his data. Indeed take in his idea and contemplate, and compare it with other information. So I reason . I come to a reasonable conclusion how it will effect me and my family and what do I want to do about it.
"Global warming" was changed to "climate change" to spin the blame game for any conceivable outcome.
By the way, old dino is a quarter Irish born on St. Patrick's Day this week to hit #69.
And he forgives us.
The reason for this article is that the AGW people are scared. A decade ago, hardly anyone dared to murmur that they were wrong; now entire countries are openly dissing them. It is hard to overestimate the power that would be given to 'those who control carbon'. The fact that the liberals almost had that and can feel it "...slip through their fingers..." (Leia) is tormenting them.
An increasing number of prominent scientists and former-Greens are coming out against AGW. It is an increasingly uphill battle for the Greens to try to defame each one of them in turn. General polls of both the importance of AGW and the validity of AGW have been sliding downhill rapidly.
It is good that Lynch is doing this. If she gets FBI 'approval' and tries to go ahead, a lot of organizations will jump up to contest this on constitutional grounds.
They are running scared.
Jan
― Mahatma Gandhi
At least our kinda communism is to sue you instead of shoot you.
So far . . .
The world is round and it revolves around the sun, dammit.
(Someone get my tongue out of my cheek. It's stuck!)
The case of AGW is much much more ambiguous. There is no grounds whatsoever to silence those that disagree in various ways with the case as it is usually trumpeted. There are ample reasons for doubting especially the cries that the sky is falling or the claims that only by taxing the heck out of all carbon emissions can we deal well with whatever real harm is actually present or likely.
What we should lynch people for, especially those in Justice, is trying to silence dissenting speech.
It is the same as me saying that the Liar-In-Chief is a socialist without a moral compass and guilty of treason.
Once the punishment for such could extend to threat of death.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/S...
Tyrants have learned nothing in centuries...
http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/o...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Very appropriate links. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41yJT...
Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZegQ...
a la Mel Brooks
Of course, there has always been climate change. Therefore, whatever the weather does is man-made and money needs to be thrown at it while coal miners lose jobs. .
(That's my reply after off and on mulling over your question for about an hour).
Living in an age of scientific learning and innovation, this one question of "Human Involvement in Climate Change" seems to perplex me. I know I'm a geologist, and have a better than average understanding of earth processes, but the stuff that comes out of these people's mouths make me aggravated. In the most part due to the fact that If I try to set the record straight, they will denounce me and it has nearly come to violence on their end a few times. Are these "Climate" questions such a hard thing for people to learn and understand, or it more that these changes occur so slowly (that one or two lifespans is still not long enough) that people cannot conceive of them?
If it should come down to it, I'd rather we all go out taking a stand like Stonewall Jackson than to do a Socrates.
I had to laugh out loud when Al Gore said "see?" when they found the Ice Man in the Alps. "The glaciers are retreating, the glaciers are retreating". Well guess what Al, the man died going through that pass when there was no ice 5000 years ago.
Obama is trying to save us from the Earth itself.
One of the members of the Gulch did a fantastic Proof that man is not really responsible for climatic effects. That should be emailed to Lynch.
On seconds thought, it may be placed in a persons of interest file.
Either way, I bet she is not the one who reads it.
Here is a good example of stonewalling when you DO get to talk to an EcoNazi~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmxMG...
Who defined the "current understanding"?
And do you also know that there has been no global warming for the almost the last 20 years?
And how does the analogy of the tobacco issue even compare to the burning of fossil fuels? The parameters (i.e. premises) are so different that the attempt at equating the two falls flat on its face.
I'm just repeating the analog Sen Whitehouse was quoted using in the article. It has similarities in that modern science shows a product has hidden costs, and the people selling deny it. It's different, though, because apart from second-hand smoke, most of the costs of smoking are borne by the product users.
" how did you know all your adult life that burning fossil fuels was "bad for the environment"?"
I'm 40, so the science has been pointing that way most of my life, and the evidence became overwhelming in my adult life. My point is people know what the mainstream scientific opinion is. It's different from someone selling homeopathy. In both cases we wish it were true, but I think many people don't know the scientific opinion on homeopathy, so making health claims about it really could be fraud. If start suing people for saying things that are scientifically incorrect, there would be a lot of law suits.
But think about the phrase "mainstream scientific opinion". Who determines what is mainstream? There are claims that 97% of scientists are on board with the AGW theorem and then you find well, 30,000 scientists signed a petition of non support for the AGW theorem.
Regarding the analogy between AGW and tobacco, the only similarity is that ginned up science was used to promote a position. The tobacco comapnies tried to hide the health hazards of smoking tobacco and the AGW cronies pushing for global controls are hiding the fact that satellite data - which covers far more of the atmospheric volume then isolated temperature stations positioned in areas of urban heat - shows no global warming for the last 20 years. Half of your lifetime.
But, you're right there would be a lot of lawsuits. But that would be one thing if it were just individuals suing each other. The point of this post was the fact that government is considering going after those that don't toe the politically correct party line agenda. That is dangerous.
Science is incomprehensible to people who start by picking the answer they want and stick to it.
I may argue with you. I may get mad at you. I might even make fun of you.
What I will never do is try to shut you up.
I will even fight for your right to say anything you want.
I agree. This is a bad thing about UK libel laws. People can sue people, even foreigners to the UK, for libel, and the burden is on the person speaking to prove he thought it was true. I'd rather err on the side of not suing people.
The issue in this article is when it becomes fraud. My thought is it's not fraud if you say there's a conspiracy and [insert undesirable scientific theory] is wrong. It is fraud if you lie about your product.
This means someone in the 80s rejecting the mainstream opinion about fats being unhealthful would have been right. If they sold food with high fat and said they rejected the scientific opinion that all fat is bad for you, they would have been right. If they had sold food with higher fat and called it "low fat", that would be fraud.