Posted on 05/10/2016 6:52:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the 1950s, it was: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” Today, it’s: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a climate-change denier?”
I’m not referring simply to the fact that it’s politically incorrect to question assertions of man-made global warming. That’s bad enough, but no -- I mean that if some powerful individuals get their way, it could soon be a federal crime to do so.
“The bottom line is simple,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said at a recent press conference. “Climate change is real.” He was joined by more than a dozen other state attorneys general who vowed to investigate -- and quite possibly prosecute -- individuals and organizations that criticize the conventional wisdom on climate change.
Their crusade has captured the sympathy of U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who on March 9 told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she has discussed internally the possibility of pursuing civil actions against “climate change deniers.” Worse, she has “referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action.”
That struck committee member Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) as a great idea. After all, he had urged Lynch to prosecute those who “pretend that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled.” He particularly wants to go after those in the “fossil fuel industry” who allegedly have a “climate denial apparatus” in place to say something Sen. Whitehouse disagrees with.
The fact that this flies in the face of the First Amendment seems so crushingly obvious that I can’t believe it needs to be said. But when you have public officials talking about using the federal government to punish those who dissent from their viewpoint, it is actually necessary to say it.
And that’s what we’re talking about here: a viewpoint. “They want to investigate and prosecute corporations and individuals for their opinions on an unproven scientific theory, for which there is not a consensus, despite inaccurate claims to the contrary,” writes legal expert Hans von Spakovsky.
There is, in fact, more diversity of opinion than one would expect among meteorologists and scientists on climate change and what’s causing it. We’re constantly being told “the science is settled” -- that the scientific community is marching in lockstep behind Al Gore’s pet theories. But polls show that they’re split on the issue.
Many scientists and climate experts, yes, say that climate change is real and that human activity is causing it. Some say it’s a mixture of human activity and natural causes. Others say not enough is known to say for sure.
Perhaps this is why Lynch and the state attorneys general are contemplating federal intervention. On survey after survey, the public puts global warming low on the list of important issues. Perhaps a little extra-legal muscle from the feds will make the organizations that question climate change fall into line?
Von Spakovsky sees hints in this “of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those whom he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Both Lynch and Whitehouse might want to read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, ‘In the First Circle,’ in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.”
Perhaps someone can remind Secretary Lynch that we have free speech protections for a reason. They are designed not to protect the liberty of those who express the politically popular point of view, but to protect those who dare to say something contrary to it.
As President Truman once said, “In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have.” The question is, are we still in a free country?
There are lies, damned lies and statistics!
“Are we still living in a free country ??”
Does a bear use Charmin in the woods?
Exactly true !
It occurs when facts are ignored for the sake of legalizing agenda
I deny, that I deny, that I deny being a global warming denier.
If you click the link, you will see two large housing developments located in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Hundreds of houses, as well as business. They don't have streets, they have canals. The height of the water is controlled by the height of the world's oceans.
Here's the Tiki Island town webpage.
Here's the thing. If global sea-level rise was real, this town - and the development of Bayou Vista - which is nearby and even bigger - would be ghost towns. Only crazy people would live there.
Same is true of the canal communities of Florida, which encompass tens of thousands of homes. Go to Google Maps and look at the area of Tampa-St. Petersburg. Look north and south along the Gulf coast, towns like New Port Richey, Clearwater, and Bonita Springs, just to name a few obvious cases. These are places in which hundreds of thousands of people have invested, and they are literally in the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore directly affected by changes in the sea level.
Which was a direct response to known Soviet tactics, and completely legitimate. It's because we stopped doing that, we now have this: Today, it’s: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a climate-change denier?”
Had we allow the HAUC and McCarthy with his Senate investigations, we'd likely not be dealing with climate change BS.
Incarceration and confiscation are real threats for those who refuse to believe we are doomed because cow farts are melting icebergs or for questioning how a person with a penis can put on a wig and stand next to a young girl in a women's bathroom.
Please Donald, put an end to this madness!
State funding of “science” has lead to a predictable result—political correctness quashes free scientific inquiry.
All members of Congress should visit the Holocaust museum to learn what state sponsored “science” leads to...
TO THE DC CONTROLLERS: “Over your dead body.”
At best they should be out on their ears already - you know that pesky oath of office and all.
Just watch the “Weather Channel” when they try to predict something as near term and well defined as the paths of hurricanes. Depending on the model they use (of many available), the paths vary by hundreds (if not thousands) of miles merely days in the future. Yet, they purport to predict the trends of global temperatures years, decades, and centuries in advance.
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here
“The question is, are we still in a free country?”
NO!
If they really want to prosecute companies for “lying” about “climate change” - then wouldn’t that have to also apply for overstating the alarm as well as understating it?
Of course, if they ever tried to pursue this, then they would have to start off with some standard of what they claim is the “truth” about various factors such as how much warming will occur, how much of it is caused by humans, and how severe the consequences will be at various levels of manmade C02 going into the atmosphere.
Then they have to define to what degree people can have opinions or claim research results that deviate from either or all of these before that is considered illegal - and that degree of deviation should then apply in BOTH directions, which would mean they would also need to prosecute alarmists if they stray too far from the government approved “truth”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.