Global warming deniers deserve jail????????

[Harper_is_Bush]

Consider:

A man emerges from the basement of a crouded church knowing that a small fire was burning in the boiler room, a fire that can only grow.

He then proceeds to circulate through the church telling everyone the smoke they smell is inconsequential. He says whatever he thinks will calm people, such as "The fire is out".

Subsequently the fire spreads, the boiler explodes, and many die.

Is that man criminally responsible? OF COURSE!

Are the global warming liars/deniers not responsible for the lack of action, and thus the increased impact and death toll of global warming?

People like Tim Ball should go to jail.

[cali]

1. I couldn't disagree with you more n/t

[Skinner]

2. Oh, jeez.

Of course not.

[Harper_is_Bush]

3. Why?

Why "of course not"?

[pitohui]

6. because of the principle of "steal a little, they put you in jail, steal a lot, they make you king"

global warming deniers will kill millions, and people who kill millions don't go to jail

[Horse with no Name]

5. I don't think jail is warranted

perhaps the death penalty? :eyes:

[Harper_is_Bush]

20. lol.

Bad joke! Death penalty is my second buggaboo next to global warming.

[John Kerry VonErich]

34. LOL

Sorry, had to do that.

[Rage for Order]

36. I agree Horse...

We could hang him with eco-friendly hemp rope!

[Canuckistanian]

40. As long as it's not the electric chair

Do you know how much energy those things waste?

I suppose a solar or wind-powered chair would be acceptable.

[John Kerry VonErich]

45. How about bio degradable lethal injections.

lol

[Mythsaje]

4. Stupidity is not, and has never been, a criminal offense.

Thank Gawd.

[pitohui]

7. malicious fraud is a criminal offense

the folks denying global warming profit from it or are paid by those who profit handsomely from it

but since millions will die, instead of a handful, it's fine

that's the way our world works sadly

ain't no justice in this world

if you must be evil, be BOLD in your evil and you will triumph

[Mythsaje]

12. Ah, but then you have to prove intent...

"Just because I took money from so-and-so doesn't mean I'm not an idiot."

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. Intent is pretty obvious. The denial community is pretty transparent. n/t

[pitohui]

17. which is not difficult, just follow the dollar bill EOM

,

[cali]

9. Amen. And

neither is malicious lying a criminal offence. Civil perhaps, but not criminal. At least not in this country.

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. Are you telling me that the person in my OP analogy would not be charged for criminal negligence? nt

[cali]

33. I'm telling you it's a lousy analogy, and I'm not sure whether

he'd be charged. What if he believed that the fire posed no threat, and would be put out? What if he could "prove" that? But forget Mr. Boiler for a moment: It appears that you're suggesting we prosecute Mr. Denier for a million deaths that haven't yet occurred. And If they have, how does one prove in a court of law that global warming is the proximate causeof death?

[Bobbieo]

11. Sentence them to a summer in Yuma's terroritorial prison.

That'll fry 'em!

[Harper_is_Bush]

13. I believe you are missing the jist...it's negligence, not "stupidity" n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. Let me mention, on the first question there is no debate....

absolutely the man in the church analogy/story IS guilty of criminal negligence and would be going to jail to pay for whatever death ensued from his bad counsel.

The question is how is that bad counsel resulting in death different from the bad counsel by global warming denialists?

[cgrindley]

10. Can we also lock up MIHOPpers?

what about those of us who feel that anthrogenic climate change is not only utterly irreversible but that it's rate cannot be slowed? and hence do not plan to do anything at all about it... do we get probation?

[Harper_is_Bush]

14. Are those people engaged in a purposeful campain of deceit to delay action?

If so, then sure, let's get 'em.

[cgrindley]

57. What do you mean deceit? Climate change is utterly unstoppable

and unless we threaten to vaporize the developing world, there's no real point in doing anything at all about climate change. It seems that China and India actually want to cause the entire world to become uninhabitable rather than start tearing down all their industrial infrastructure.

There is no such thing as sustainable development. Unless 5.5 or so billion people die of some horrible pandemic, the world is utterly doomed.

[rusty quoin]

15. I think it's criminal for the oil companies to have a campaign

to mislead, so they could make more profit, risking the deaths of millions of people. I hope there is a Hell, for there has to be a special place for them.

[Harper_is_Bush]

19. Exactly. And their minions (paid deniers) deserve no less. n/t

[WindRavenX]

18. oh god no

jesus christ.

[RestoreGore]

21. It is like the Neocons and Iraq

They "tweeked" the intelligence to suit their own agenda and LIED to the American people while stifling debate, thus causing the deaths of thousands to make a profit from it. Those who are doing the same regarding this climate crisis are already leading to the extinction of species and the degradation of our planet. If they don't need to be held accountable, who does? This is why they consistently come out and "deny" anthropogenic climate change now. If you don't admit it exists, in your mind you don't have to feel morally responsible for the consequences. And for lying deliberately and "tweeking" the evidence regarding a crisis that results in the deaths of innocent people and other species, I think there should be consequences for those who do so.

[Harper_is_Bush]

22. Yes, except that global warming will result in far more deaths. n/t

[RestoreGore]

25. Agreed, just making the point that it is deliberate misleadng on their part

These "skeptics" are not doing this out of any real scientific concern. They just want funding. They know what the data shows and I believe they are deliberately telling people the opposite to keep their bank accounts full, and to me that is a crime.

[Harper_is_Bush]

27. Yes, in that regard it is the same. n/t

[Rex]

24. So you want to jail people who disagree with science?

Hope you have a big prison! Do you have the money to house all these new criminals?

[Harper_is_Bush]

26. No, the people who knowingly deceive.

The masses fooled by them are not negligent.

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. Jail is more than they deserve, quite frankly.

The time for polite tolerance is over.

[Dave From Canada]

29. Did you get that idea out of Mein Kampf? One can agree with the problem of global warming, but have

legitimate disagreements with proposed solutions to the problem. Also, which others of brought up already, but ignorance isn't a crime. You can't throw people in jail for being stupid.

[RestoreGore]

31. This isn't about stupidity

This is about deliberate deception and a well funded campaign by companies including EXXON to keep their coffers full and the mouthpieces they use to pander for them. And if not jail, then I think EXXON and their enablers need to give back all the money they funnelled from their lies.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

30. Worst. Post. Ever.

You really ought to try to move beyond this sick fascist power fantasy stage of your development.

Left wing fascists are no more charming than the conventional kind.

[RestoreGore]

32. What about the CEOS of big tobacco who stood up and lied to Congress

Should they have gotten away with that? By the logic of some here, Ken Lay then didn't deserve to be in jail either.

[Spazito]

35. Oh geez, they need to be humiliated, discredited not jailed

While free speech may be an irritant when we don't agree with the speaker, they have the right and I am very grateful they, and I, do.

[RestoreGore]

37. So why do you have an Impeach Bush avatar?

Surely then they just disagreed with us. Their deceit and lies haven't done anything really wrong. Blackwater and Halliburton should be allowed to go about their business and all those who still sell this illegal war for profit knowing what it is doing and the people it is killing are just disagreeing with us because they have the right. That it tantamount to saying that EXXON and all other companies and their mouthpieces and enablers who are part of this structured campaign to keep truth from people regarding climate change to the detriment of their children's future should just get a slap on the wrist. It really then must be true that people on the whole simply cannot connect the dots regarding the urgency of this crisis and the deliberate machinations of those who wish to keep that urgency at bey regardless of the consequences to humanity and other species because it affects their profit margins. I don't know about you, but that is pretty insidious to me.

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/globalWarmingUrgency.htm
Everyone should read this.

[cali]

38. This is just ridiculous. To the max.

bush and cheney and associates, lied us into a war of aggression, they contravened the Constitution by setting up illegal programs to spy on Americans, etc. etc.

I'm shocked and dismayed by the people on this thread who would so merrily jettison the first amendment.

I have no use for global warming deniers, but all the use in the world for the first amendment.

If you can prove that Exon or any other corporation deliberately falsified reports or studies that's one thing, but prosecuting someone for simply saying they don't believe in Global warming, is bull.

[RestoreGore]

39. The evidence is out there

Perhaps you should go do some research. It is obvious the climate crisis isn't something many care about here because it isn't "political" enough, which is actually the problem. And you don't get it either. They aren't "denying" anything in reality, they know full well what is causing this but they choose to deliberately deceive people about it because it makes them rich, and those same people support those who led us into this illegal war and who are STILL stalling setting mandatory limits to GHG emissions. But you come back and tell me once Bangladesh is under water and thousands of people are refugees without water and food that those who precipitated the conditions that led to it out of greed and corporate malfeasance are not responsible. I think that is BS.

http://www.exposeexxon.org

Good lord, this planet truly is screwed.

[cali]

41. Oh screw your judgemental bull.

I care deeply about climate change- and on a personal level. I live in a place where climate change is already impacting our way of life.

You're being so vague and broad about who can be held criminally responsible that its scary to see. Who is they? Precisely? If you want to formulate a criminal law you have to be precise. Just the verbal act of denying climate change doesn't cut it. And it sure doesn't trumpt the first amendment. You want to abridge that, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than vague pronouncements about evil doers.

[RestoreGore]

42. Good way to deflect your own willingness to ignore this...

If you care deeply you wouldn't be attacking me and being so defensive. Where did I type YOU didn't care? And you still aren't getting it. There is evidence to prove that EXXON has funded a deliberate misinformation campaign to thwart the efforts of scientists and good people like Al Gore who are trying to get the truth about the urgency of anthropogenic climate change out, and those like Patrick J. Michaels, Fred S. Singer, Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, and others are part of it as they have received funding connected with EXXON and oil/energy companies without offering up any conclusive evidence to back up ANYTHING they claim, well, because they can't. And they have infiltrated the media with this BS as well. It has nothing to do with being judgemental or just about "verbal acts", but everything to do with stating a factual observation and being DEEPLY CONCERNED that many people don't seem to be able to connect the dots of what is going on behind the scenes.

As I stated, the evidence is there, and it has also been reported here. If you care as deeply as you say you do then go look for it. Go look up "Leipzig Declaration" and the ties many of these "deniers" had also to the tobacco industry. Attacking me for giving a damn and wanting to see accountability isn't going to change what is right in front of your eyes. This goes way beyond a "verbal act." The effects of this climate crisis per the UN will be tantamount to the effects of nuclear war within the space of only thirty to forty years, and the Arctic ice caps will be GONE in about 23 years at their current rate of melting which will be catastrophic for many, while these bastards continue to LIE to get their pockets full while telling us there is nothing to worry about, as they ARE SHAPING POLICY by their political ties. So don't sit there and talk about ME being judgemental.

[cali]

43. I'm attacking you because you're attacking the first amendment

and once you fuck with that, we're all fucked. Really, it's that simple. If your proposal to criminalize people who deny global warming encroaches on the first amendment, I'm in fierce opposition. Once it's eroded in that manner, it's hard to undo the damage. If Singer, Ball and others can be charged under current fraud laws, I'm all for it. But I draw the line at stepping on the first amendment.

And yes, I'm aware of how dire the threat is. In fact, I believe the damage is already irreversible. No, I don't mean we shouldn't work on reversing it, I simply believe in looking at things realistically.

[RestoreGore]

52. No I'm not

WHERE DID I TYPE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPOUT BS? Typical ploy of someone who can't refute or debate. It is Bush who has taken away the scientists' 1st amendment rights regarding disseminating the FACTS surrounding this crisis. So if you truly care for people who "fuck" with that, then I'm not the one you should be concerned about. Asking for ACCOUNTABILITY is not stifling anyone's right to spew their LIES.

[Spazito]

47. bush has committed war crimes and needs to be put on trial (impeachment)

for those crimes. For you to suggest that climate change deniers are in the same category is, imo, totally ridiculous.

They are exercising their right of free speech positing positions I categorically reject but fully agree with their right to say it.

They have done nothing illegal, odious as their propaganda is, it is legal.

I respect your passion about the urgency of the issue, climate change, but couldn't disagree with you more on how to deal with the deniers. Investigate where the money is coming from, make it public, humiliate them, take away their credibility not their freedom.

[RestoreGore]

53. And how did I say I wanted to deal with them?

I stated they should have to return all the monies they funnelled to themselves through willful deceit and malfeasance. So are you sure you are responding to the right person? And you think it riduculous to put EXXON in the same category as Halliburton? If so, then you totally misconstrued the context of my comments.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

44. Um, no.

Thought crimes should never be real crimes. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and there are some crazy conservatives out there who would love to throw a good chunk of us in jail just on the basis of what we believe.

Ridicule and discreditation are punishment enough for these people. Counter bad evidence with good evidence, and I guarantee you the truth will eventually come out to even the most stubborn headed of persons.

[gollygee]

46. The willfully ignorant will always be among us

It isn't a crime to be stupid.

[LanternWaste]

48. let's make it easy...

Let's suppose the sweet, little old lady next door to you supports the conflict in Iraq. By the same line of thinking you gave us, she should also be in jail.

And we can take that same line of thinking to almost anything w/ negative consequences. I've got it! let's make it easy-- everyone who disagrees with you about pretty much everything should do some serious jail time.

[Locrian]

49. who decides?

W/O first amendment who decides truth? The Gov? What if it was "should someone be jailed for arguing FOR global warming?" That to me seems like the most realistic of what actually could happen in bush world.

[seriousstan]

50. If you talk like this in public, please don't mention you're a Dem.

Self-identify as a wing-nut or moonbat or whatever, but please FOR THE LOVE OF GOD not a Dem!

[Javaman]

51. you first have to realized that deniers don't even believe anything is on fire. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Well, holocaust deniers go to prison.

Not that I agree with that either.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. Not in this country they don't

Something to do with the 1st Amendment...

[Dr. Strange]

56. As long as we're jailing people...

does Edwards go to jail because of his house and the effect that has on the environment?

What about you, using the electricity running through the tubes of the internet?

[varkam]

58. That has got to be the most absurd thing that I have read...

...in quite some time.

Should people who deny evolution be sent to prison? What about people who advocate homeopathy? What about people who like a different kind of ice cream than you do?

It's a free-speech issue. More than that, it's about being free to think what one wants. If we start locking up everyone who doesn't think exactly the way we do, then not only are we going to be looking at an even more serious prison crowding problem (which is already serious), but we're going to be abridging some pretty fundamental human rights.

Look, I think people who deny the existence of global warming are wrong. Likewise, I think that people who are holocaust deniers are wrong as well, but I really don't think that we should be shipping them off to Guantanamo.

Moreover, your analogy is rather poor. People who deny global warming don't accept that there is a fire in the first place. You might wonder how people can not accept that given the preponderance of the evidence, but being stupid and/or stubborn is not a criminal offense. If it were, I imagine that we would of all been locked up at some point.

[spoony]

60. The only thing more absurd is the support the idea is finding --nt

[Oak2004]

59. There may be something here worth examining

Free speech is not without limits: courts do not consider fraudulent or otherwise intentionally damaging speech to be protected speech (which is understood to be a very different beast from an unpopular or bizarre opinion, even one whose expression results in disruptive and criminal behavior by its opponents).

I think, especially in light of what has happened since the mid-20th century, there may be solid legal grounds for a narrowly tailored law prohibiting the knowing or reckless dissemination of deceptive propaganda which leads to or is likely to lead to public harm, for profit or renumeration. Such a narrowly tailored law would, I think, pass the First Amendment smell test, would leave unaffected those who sincerely believe unpopular and even damaging beliefs, and would home in on those at the top of deceptive movements who actually benefit from the harm they cause.

The dissemination of deceptive, damaging, propaganda isn't something that can be ignored (it has killed millions, and may yet kill billions in the lifetime of some of us here), and given that there's little true public discourse in the age of mass media, can't always be defeated in a timely manner by speaking the truth. It does harm. It's past time to craft a legal remedy.

On the other hand a not so carefully crafted law that amounts to "you said a dangerous thing, and you shall be punished" is not at all what the United States needs.

[tammywammy]

61. Of course not and it's ridiculous to suggest they should go to jail

The 1st Amendment applies to everyone, even if you disagree with them.

[shadowknows69]

62. They should be the last ones getting food, swim gear and sunblock anyway

When we're living in waterworld with a sun that kills.

[ShadowLiberal]

63. Isn't that basically censorship?

I'm sorry but what you're suggesting is basically "lets lock up people who don't agree with us", and that's wrong.

Now I'll admit, I'm a moderate when it comes to the global warming issue. While I don't really agree with the theory and why things seem to be warming up, I do agree that if you look at the polar ice caps you can't deny that things are warming up over there and if it keeps up we might have no ice caps anymore.

[Harper_is_Bush]

64. Basically no, it's not. It's quite simple really....

criminal negligence is criminal negligence.

What part of the analogy don't you understand? And if you do understand it, then in what way are global warming deniers different than the man emerging from the basement?

[undercutter2006]

65. yeah

at least the thread starter is enthusiastic about something, unlike most people in the country, I guess that's a plus

this is no different than the freepers who want to jail people for speaking out against the war, same kind of logic