Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes

[mjr]

Some "climate change" activists want skeptics legally punished.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ent-for-skept/

So, what say you? Seems very Orwellian to me. "Believe the way we tell you to, or else."

There are FOUR lights!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moX3z2RJAV8

[Tanasi]

My response would be "Is your argument and evidence so poor you have your opponents punished for disagreeing?"

[mjr]

My response would be "Is your argument and evidence so poor you have your opponents punished for disagreeing?"

I think, based on what I got from the article, that they're equating climate change skeptics with murderers, and therefore they're saying they should be punished legally, because the skeptics are "causing" the death of people due to being skeptics about AGW.

[Tanasi]

I think, based on what I got from the article, that they're equating climate change skeptics with murderers, and therefore they're saying they should be punished legally, because the skeptics are "causing" the death of people due to being skeptics about AGW.

Then shouldn't they have to prove their case and produce bodies???

[s_stabeler]

To be fair, while I disagree that critics of climate change should be punished, some of the critics actively- and deliberately- confuse the issue by literally making things up. (and before anyone brings up climategate, that particular study was always recognised as being unreliable precisely because the figures were adjusted. It was intended as "hey, this is odd, can we have funding to investigate if it's real?" not "this proves this is definitively real") those "skeptics" arguably deserve punishment since they are more-or-less intentionally causing fairly major long-term damage for their own personal gain. (I see it as a little bit different to most cases of freedom of speech because the "skeptics" in question don't necessarily actually believe the crap they spout- and I don't think that actually should be protected by freedom of speech. If you legitimately believe climate change is either nonexistent, or not caused by humans, I disagree with you on both counts, but it's your right to say so. If you are actively, intentionally, lying about it to deceive people into opposing efforts to correct the problem, then no, I don't particularly think you deserve to wave "freedom of speech" around to dodge the consequences of that,

It's like I know for a fact that there is at least an undercurrent of frustration and/or anger from millennials that older generations have benefited from advantages- like either free or cheap higher education- while now that they have reached the age when it's arguably time for them to pay it forward by paying for those same advantages for milennials, they come over all santimonious, claiming that milennials should "pay their dues" (often by working for wages too low to live on until someone from an older generation chooses to let them have a living wage- or having to work two full-time jobs to be able to afford basic living expenses.) and that they should "pull themselves up by their bootlaces" (while said older generation often try their hardest to cut said bootlaces)- there have been studies that milennials will almost certainly have the lowest social mobility of any generation, as a direct result of older generations causing the financial crash, then cutting the safety nets that help reduce the damage. (For instance, I always get irritated when benefit cuts are proposed under the basis that benefits are more lucrative than working- maybe that should be a hint that you aren't paying enough, not proof people are lazy. (I actually have thought before that benefits should guarantee you receive enough for a basic living, then if a certain job really isn't viable paying more than that, then it actually is a good thing that said job goes away due to automation. The real problem is that there's never sufficient effort in identifying new jobs that are actually realistic for those that lose their jobs to said automation. (for instance, it's fairly common to suggest workers from factories that close down get tech jobs, but those jobs rarely- if ever- match up to the skills of the former employees (hence the workers typically end up coming from elsewhere, causing resentment. Combine that with retraining programmes often being somewhat basic, so they don't actually help that much...)

[mjr]

I'll just go ahead and put this here...

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/13...climate-denial