Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' | The Register

If you need any more reason not to listen to this guy, here you go.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

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

Putting out misinformation deliberately is a crime by my standards as well. That goes for all parties, whatever side of an issue they are on.

so should we be prosecuting Al Gore ?

So there will now be an official "right" side of all debate, and any attempt to distribute information which opposes this position will be a "high crime against humanity"?

Screw that.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Go for it

No, it simply means there is a limit to the justification of the means to a goal.

For example, if the goal is to sell cigarettes, deliberate lies about the effects of smoking are not necessarily justified means to such a goal.

Then it's a good thing you aren't in any power to legislate laws that affect me. There must be a God.

__________________
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

However, there is grey area here - Hansen himself discusses legitimate skepticism and debate in the article linked.

But Hansen proposes criminalizing promoting the skeptical view as a "high crime against humanity".

Sorry, but that's just bullshit.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Not the same thing at all. It is nearly unanimously accepted fact that smoking causes cancer. Even then, it should never be a crime to disagree with fact. You might remember the last time they did that, when Galileo was locked up for saying the Earth went around the Sun. Do we want to return to those times?

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

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

And actually meaning he regrets that natural debate normal.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

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

I don't read it as such. The article says that he bemoans that an industry has exploited the natural skepticism embedded in the scientific process. Which of course means that he has no problem with skepticism since he describes it as a natural embedment, or part, of science. Therefore, he can't have any more of a problem with promoting a skeptical view than promoting the view itself. The exception to this is only when the promotion of a view, skeptical or not, makes use of deliberate misinformation. And that takes us back to the assessment of whether or not misinformation is justifiable as a mean to a goal.

Huh?

What do you think it means that skepticism and debate is embedded in the scientific process?

When did "disagreement" become synonymous with "misinformation"??

Sorry, but criminalizing disagreement is anathema to a free society.

If there is "misinformation", counter it with correct information.

Calling for the jailing of people who disagree with you has no place in a free society.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

What on earth? Maybe you can answer the question, then: When did "disagreement" become synonymous with "misinformation"??