Originally Posted by jviehe

I willing to admit that I do not have the capability to convince someone how rediculous it is to agree with someone who says people should be locked up for disagreeing with global warming. My time would be better spent convincing someone the sky is purple.

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

Originally Posted by Si modo

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

Originally Posted by Pogo

Hansen doesn't say that anyone should be locked up for disagreeing with GW. You conflate disagreement with the intentional spreading of misinformation but the two are not at all the same thing.

Given your tendency to spread misinformation, I can see why it's a touchy subject for you.

Originally Posted by hermanboo

What would be the acceptable term to use describing a scientific debate in which 90% of experimenters support one theory, and 10% support an opposing theory?

To say that science only exists when something is 100% accepted as a theory also seems disingenuous.

Originally Posted by Pogo

Hansen doesn't say that anyone should be locked up for disagreeing with GW. You conflate disagreement with the intentional spreading of misinformation but the two are not at all the same thing.

Given your tendency to spread misinformation, I can see why it's a touchy subject for you.

Originally Posted by hermanboo

What would be the acceptable term to use describing a scientific debate in which 90% of experimenters support one theory, and 10% support an opposing theory?

To say that science only exists when something is 100% accepted as a theory also seems disingenuous.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

One person's disagreement is another's "misinformation".

Which is precisely why criminalizing it is a non-starter.

Thanks for so clearly illustrating the point.

Matt

Originally Posted by Pogo

When you intentionally misinform, you've gone beyond disagreeing.

Originally Posted by Pogo

When you intentionally misinform, you've gone beyond disagreeing.

Originally Posted by Si modo

Did Hansen mention anything about intentionally misinforming?

No, he didn't. Even if he did, it's still an outrageous demand. Too Orwellian for may tastes, but not for others, I see.

Originally Posted by Pogo

From the linked article:



In case you aren't aware, to disinform is to deliberately mislead.

Originally Posted by Si modo

So what? It is not a crime whether Hansen claims it is disinformation or not.

What kind of limit on free speech is that? Seriously, Pogo, you have my jaw dropping with your support that Hansen's opinion of what is misleading should be a crime.

No invitations to Hansen's coronation are forthcoming to me, so I guess I can be against Hansen on his odd opinions of who should be locked up and who shouldn't. I'm safe...for now.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

One person's disagreement is another's "misinformation".

Which is precisely why criminalizing it is a non-starter.

Thanks for so clearly illustrating the point.

Matt

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Matt Larson, you've always struck me as a reasonable and intelligent person. Can you answer the question I posed in post #64? I'm reposting it here so you don't have to turn pages:

Suppose George W. Bush is impeached due to the circumstances that lead to the invasion of Iraq.

Do you think George W. Bush would
1. be acquitted if he acted in good faith, whether or not he was misinformed himself, or,
2. be acquitted if he willfully made use of false information?