This wikipedia list details the some of the scientists, their arguments, and links to their opinions/findings: List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Among them are:

Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists

__________________
Success is measured in blood; yours or your enemy's.

It must be National Seagull Day today. *sigh*

At least even the foaming-at-the-mouth partisans see that it is not a crime to express a different viewpoint.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

What a cheap cop-out.

Here are a few more sources, which attribute the same quote to Hansen:

James Hansen: Try Fossil Fuel CEOs For ‘High Crimes Against Humanity’ · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives
Facing South: NASA's Hansen: "One hundred percent dividend or fight!"
t r u t h o u t | Scientist to Congress: Oil Execs Commit High Crimes (quotes the Guardian - but you can't expect the ultra-right wing TruthOut to do their own, well, anything)
Daily Kos: UPDATED: Crimes Against Humanity: James Hansen Calls for Trials of Oil, Coal Chief Executives (the super-righty Daily KOS is in on it too)

When you're done spewing some silliness about all those sources being "right winger" sites, here it is on video:

ABC News

And here's an op-ed piece that Hansen wrote, where he calls for these criminal trials:

Guest Opinion: Global Warming Twenty Years Later | Worldwatch Institute

So, can we dispense with the dishonest "right winger" cop out now?

Or do I need to get Hansen on a fucking plane to come to your house and tell you himself that he's called for trials for "crimes against humanity" for global warming deniers?

Matt

__________________

Here ya go:
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find the part on how global warming may actually be beneficial to humanity quite interesting...

**Edit** ThorHammer beat me to the link~

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what's for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed lamb willing to contest the majority decision!" ~ Benjamin Franklin
"Diplomacy is the art of saying Nice Doggie! while you're looking for a rock. ~ Wynn Catlin
"There are no innocent civilians." - Gerneral Curtis Lemay. A.K.A Bombs away Lemay

I just provided you four more links - and video - and an op-ed piece from Hansen himself.

All of which you could have located with minimal effort and spared yourself the embarrassment of trotting out that idiotic "right-winger site claim".

As for your utterly irrelevant question about what I personally believe, I'll answer it so you'll have one less off-topic irrelevancy to use to avoid the question.

I do believe that human activity alters the climate. However, I do not accept the claims some make that all is lost if we don't go back to living in grass huts (the Andrewl argument).

So, are you convinced now that Hansen called for trials for "crimes against humanity" for global warming deniers?

If we've made that much progress, then we can delve into what "crimes against humanity" means, and what the punishment entails.

Matt

__________________

This just in!!! The earth is changing!!! That's right. From the very birth of the Earth, right up to this moment the planet is constantly changing. After we are all long dead the planet will continue to change too! It never stops changing!! Sometimes it changes and we get beautiful things to look at- like the Grand Canyon or Yosemite!! Sometimes it gets really cold (BRRR!) and we get an ice age. Sometimes the planet gets warmer too, it's all part of the earth's natural cycle. Some of the earth's species do not survive during the periods of change. Yep, they go extinct. These species just can't make it in the earth's ever changing environment. This process is called "survival of the fittest" and it is a natural part of the planet's evolution. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, fires, these are all natural too.

Sadly, today many people have been indoctrinated into believing that the earth's natural changes are caused by human activities. We call these people "climate alarmists". They often foam at the mouth and get red faced with rage when their beliefs are questioned. They want to squelch any debate and refuse to consider differing viewpoints. In the Dark Ages we had a similar group of people - they were responsible for the "Spanish Inquisition". They were very naughty people! When you disagreed with them they cut out your tongue or burned you at the stake! They too were very intolerant and like today's "climate alarmists", very, very wrong.

So If this jackass Hansen gets his way, I'll be arrested soon.

__________________
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to
change it." -- Barack Obama

I challenged his politicial opinions, not his opinions on the science.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Thats not the topic here, just his opinion that denying his theories is criminal. Im not environmental scientist.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

Lindzen is a consultant to ExxonMobil and Daimler Benz.
He also questions the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

Zichichi has been a very controversial figure also, he wrote a book that argued that Galileo readily abandoned his belief in a solar centric system, because he was a devout Catholic who faith overrode his observations.

I'm not saying that you can't compile a list of scientists who don't accept AGW, you can compile a list of scientists who discount the link between smoking and cancer, you can compile a list of scientists who believe the world was created 6000 years ago.
But that misrepresents the scientific consensus, and misleads those people who are incapable of distinguishing between the real scientific consensus, and the fringe groups who are always there on the other side of every issue.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

I didn't read anything about prison, either, except for a reference in the headline but I doubt that's a direct quote. I wouldn't know. Other than that, the quote "on trial for high crimes against humanity" is perhaps the one that is most likely to be associated with jail. I wouldn't know that, either. Chance is, of course, that you're reading a different article than I am.

I'm not really a fan of any of the antropogenic global warming models myself but most of all I'm not a fan of the hypes surrounding the whole thing ('hypes' in plural because they exist as an alarmist hype and an alarmist of the alarmist hype). Reading things into an article such as this one is just part of the whole hype thing.

The topic is exploitation of the completely natural part of science called skepticism (also known, if you want, as more or less substantiated disagreement) through, quote, "spreading misinformation".

Misinformation is still not synonymous with disagreement and it's certainly not synonymous with denial. Stating that it is is either a result of misinformation or of something worse.

[Emphasis mine] ROTFLMAO..."scientific" consensus.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Well, this thread is clearly growing faster than I can keep up with (technically I'm still on vacation for till next week) so I have no idea what's been posted since this.

But I can certainly agree that there's a difference between disagreement and misinformation. Also, I misunderstood and thought you were arguing for a law rather than just spelling our private standards; as far as that goes I agree with you: intentional misinformation is (in general) not an acceptable means.

WRT to prosecuting someone for loss due to misinformation, I'm pretty sure that's a civil matter rather than a criminal one and (as I think you and I both agree) so it should be.

__________________
To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society. -Theodore Roosevelt

Actually this isn't much like Galileo at all. The Galileo thing was more a matter of Church politics and really bad timing on Galileo's part. He and the main Church guy who condemned him were actually friends, but Galileo dissed him in front of his buddies and he felt betrayed.


...uh...why does saying Galileo was religious make this guy controversial? I don't see any relevance there at all. btw, I've read that too (maybe it was this guy who wrote it)

This reminds me more of the Worlds in Collision debate. The scientific establishment rightly tried to condemn a ridiculous theory there too. All they did was publicise it widely and perpetuate it's absolute silliness to this day. You'd think they'd learn.

This guy needs to read Karl Popper. Science, especially true science, should welcome debate, even, in fact especially, debate that is seriously misinformed. It gives it the chance to prove itself. Science is a system of applied doubt, not certainty.

Yes, "a crime by my standards" was a figure of speech (as I actually and genuinely think the phrase "high crime against humanity and nature" was meant to be as well, at least the first time it was uttered) but it's amusing to see people here jump from their seats.

Conning is misleading people for the purpose of profit, which is akin to stealing, and isn't that a criminal matter? I don't know and it doesn't really matter which kind it belongs to. Civil or criminal, you wouldn't have a case if you had known to prevent it and that's where misinformation makes all the difference. It doesn't need to be legislated in particular since it's already a determining factor in a court of law.

Misinformation, that is, NOT disagreement (this wasn't meant for you).