Scientists want global warming skeptics prosecuted

Originally posted by sh76
Intentionally lying before Congress it is own crime. That's not what the original post was about.

excellent we are making progress.
where else should lying be a punishable offence?

do you also accept a court of law?
how about a company lying about one of its products? should that be punishable or not?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
excellent we are making progress.
where else should lying be a punishable offence?

do you also accept a court of law?
how about a company lying about one of its products? should that be punishable or not?

where else should lying be a punishable offence?

===do you also accept a court of law?===

Yes. It's called "perjury."


===how about a company lying about one of its products? should that be punishable or not?===

In civil court yes, but only if causation and damages can be shown by a plaintiff. In criminal court, possible but less likely - only if the elements of a crime can be shown. I suppose that if a company says there are no peanuts in a food and someone with a peanut allergy dies from it because there are peanuts in it, that could be negligent homicide or manslaughter.

Criminal prosecution in a vacuum because someone told an untruth? No. Criminal prosecution for lying in an attempt to influence politicians into passing legislation? Not a chance.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i'll remember to quote you next time wajoma can't think of anything else to add to the discussion than bring up me being romanian as a negative.

oh and let's not forget: i don't care

By now it should have sunk in that you've made a mistake here.

Wouldn't you like to retract and apologise?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Are you saying that commercial fraud should be protected free speech?

Was US v. Phillip Morris Inc. wrongly decided? http://www.dwlr.com/blog/2011-05-12/rico-convictions-major-tobacco-companies-affirmed

What effect do you suppose the decision to treat corporations as 'persons' would have on decisions like this today? Could commercial fraud then be protected as free speech?

Originally posted by sh76
where else should lying be a punishable offence?

===do you also accept a court of law?===

Yes. It's called "perjury."


===how about a company lying about one of its products? should that be punishable or not?===

In civil court yes, but only if causation and damages can be shown by a plaintiff. In criminal court, possible but less likely - only if ...[text shortened]... ecution for lying in an attempt to influence politicians into passing legislation? Not a chance.

"Criminal prosecution in a vacuum because someone told an untruth? No. Criminal prosecution for lying in an attempt to influence politicians into passing legislation? Not a chance"
oh, so this is your only reservation. i agree. i also agree with the rest of your points.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"the so-called “consensus” on global warming."

it's so called because it is a consensus. climate change is happening and is caused by humans.

Many scientists disagree.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
al gore is not global warming's messiah.
unconvenient truth is not global warming's bible

How about the intentional deception carried on at East Anglia, admitted to.

Originally posted by stevemcc
Back in the day, the tobacco company executives, under oath in congress, denied that tobacco was either addictive or carcinogenic. They were committing perjury of course but they were never prosecuted. The energy industry profiteers today, in protecting their incredible revenue streams, deny that the globe is trapping heat in the environment. They are not l ...[text shortened]... jail time is far too gentle.
At any rate, they are too ignorant to be in high political office

My grandmother and great grandmother called cigarettes "cancer sticks". Not many people were fooled. Today, millions of people still smoke them despite what amount to poison warnings on the label.

Originally posted by finnegan
Cimate change can be caused by other things.

And it can be caused by human actions.

And it can be aggrevated or slowed down by human actions or by desisting from some actions.

Most people think humanity ought to deploy its resources to protect the future welfare of humanity.

Those who oppose such actions are shown repeatedly to be defending ...[text shortened]... diminish the power of elected government to develop and implement policies for the greater good.

What would be more catastrophic, warming or cooling? Generally speaking warming is more pleasant and easier to deal with than cooling, like another Ice Age.

We live in a time when we think we can control the uncontrollable.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
al gore's piece of entertainment is not the bible. that doesn't mean global warming is up for debate, just because a movie from 10 years ago might have some inaccuracies.

whether global warming is real is not up for debate. it is real. period.
whether we will be facing trouble because of the damage we cause to the environment is not up for debate. we w ...[text shortened]... ith the fishes.
what is up for debate is only how much can we save if we start fixing this now.

There are about two decades in which global temperatures have fallen or stayed the same. WHAT WARMING?!

Originally posted by normbenign
Many scientists disagree.

3% of all the scientists in the world are indeed many. they are still outnumbered 33 to 1 by those that do agree

Originally posted by normbenign
What would be more catastrophic, warming or cooling? Generally speaking warming is more pleasant and easier to deal with than cooling, like another Ice Age.

We live in a time when we think we can control the uncontrollable.

yes, we can totally deal with a billion people having to move away from the coasts and huge surfaces of farm land being flooded.

Originally posted by normbenign
There are about two decades in which global temperatures have fallen or stayed the same. [b] WHAT WARMING?![/b]

perhaps you should be careful where you get your data because that is false

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Criminal prosecution in a vacuum because someone told an untruth? No. Criminal prosecution for lying in an attempt to influence politicians into passing legislation? Not a chance"
oh, so this is your only reservation. i agree. i also agree with the rest of your points.

does that mean we're not fighting? Oh, no! That's terrible.

😉

Originally posted by Suzianne
What effect do you suppose the decision to treat corporations as 'persons' would have on decisions like this today? Could commercial fraud then be protected as free speech?

Commercial speech is protected to some extent, but not as much as is political speech. You never know with these things, but I don't think Citizens United has much of an impact on this issue. It's more about the content of the speech, not necessarily the identity of the speaker.