Should Global Warming/Climate Change denial be a crime?.

[Pidge]

Anyway the the fact a thread like this can show up is an indication of how polarised the debate has become.

It's a silly little thread alright.

[Gombeen]

I'm not entirely convinced that this is a serious question

It's a silly little thread alright.

I had considered when I read it orginally, that it was just a weak attempt to present Greens as "Eco-fascists" by goading them into saying that it should be a crime to deny climate change (and would therefore restrict democratic free speech), but I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt.

[michael1965]

Simple question, Should people who deny global warming/climate change or question the findings of the IPCC be prosecuted?. What punishment should they recieve (if any) ?.

Well, it's very important that scientific consensus is never questioned. So, I suppose they should be burnt at the stake. Or is there a better modern day punishment for eco-heresy, one that emits less CO[size=7]2[/size] perhaps? They could be branded with a green coloured star or something like that ...

[CookieMonster]

Should denying a silly thread be a crime?

How about denying the theory of evolution?

How about denying any proposed theory of explination of any given situation? Should proposing any such explination be enough justification for it to be considered fact?

This is indeed a silly thread.

[ibis]

Should denying a silly thread be a crime?

How about denying the theory of evolution?

How about denying any proposed theory of explination of any given situation? Should proposing any such explination be enough justification for it to be considered fact?

This is indeed a silly thread.

Hmm. So far the Greens think this is really silly, and our local denialistas take it seriously.

[Pidge]

Should denying a silly thread be a crime?

How about denying the theory of evolution?

How about denying any proposed theory of explination of any given situation? Should proposing any such explination be enough justification for it to be considered fact?

This is indeed a silly thread.

Hmm. So far the Greens think this is really silly, and our local denialistas take it seriously.

Yes, but that's because environmentalists are trying to get their eco-Marxist neo-Fascist agenda through.

[michael1965]

Should denying a silly thread be a crime?

How about denying the theory of evolution?

How about denying any proposed theory of explination of any given situation? Should proposing any such explination be enough justification for it to be considered fact?

This is indeed a silly thread.

Hmm. So far the Greens think this is really silly, and our local denialistas take it seriously.

Yeah. Just looked at Champa's (brief) posting history. He's a piece of work alright ....

[Auditor #9]

Of course not. The majority of those who deny that climate change is real, or man-made, do so because they believe the extremely expensive misinformation campaigns put out by interested parties like Exxon.

Those who funded, designed, or initiated such campaigns, and thereby retarded political action for their own benefit? Yes - in about 20 years, when enough of the chickens have come home to roost, I think there would be scope for a charge of crimes against humanity, but you'd need to prove that they had sufficient evidence to know that what they were doing was actually fraudulent.

Maybe it's the full moon but Champa may have a point. If there was enough evidence that certain pollutants cause climatic disruption (which causes death and could cause mass extinction) wouldn't polluters who persist risk the charge of crimes against humanity and by extension, their propagandists?

Big IF, of course.

[ibis]

Of course not. The majority of those who deny that climate change is real, or man-made, do so because they believe the extremely expensive misinformation campaigns put out by interested parties like Exxon.

Those who funded, designed, or initiated such campaigns, and thereby retarded political action for their own benefit? Yes - in about 20 years, when enough of the chickens have come home to roost, I think there would be scope for a charge of crimes against humanity, but you'd need to prove that they had sufficient evidence to know that what they were doing was actually fraudulent.

Maybe it's the full moon but Champa may have a point. If there was enough evidence that certain pollutants cause climatic disruption (which causes death and could cause mass extinction) wouldn't polluters who persist risk the charge of crimes against humanity and by extension, their propagandists?

Big IF, of course.

I don't think you can hold it against those who simply did nothing because there was no legislation requiring action, or because they genuinely felt that the scientific consensus was wrong.

However, let's take the board of ExxonMobil, who together with US coal companies has actively funded disinformation campaigns, using tactics, personnel, and companies developed to use FUD techniques on behalf of the tobacco companies - yes, I would like to see them put on trial, as well as those responsible at the PR companies. The campaigns started immediately scientists first started warning of climate change, and have not let up since. These campaigns are not 'free speech', but deliberate fraud on a massive and lethal scale in the service of corporate profits.

[Auditor #9]

This FUD?