Criminalizing Dissent

I’ve been thinking about this post for a while.  The starting point was this post on the ultra-liberal Guardian website entitled: “Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?”  Let’s go with a few of the salient points:

Although there is an important role for scepticism in science, for almost 30 years some corporations have supported a disinformation campaign about climate change science.

Really?  for 30 years?  In fact, 30 years ago the “science” community was screaming and yelling about the coming ice age.

Disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily – if not criminally – irresponsible, because the consensus scientific view is based upon strong evidence that climate change:

• Is already being experienced by tens of thousands in the world;

• Will be experienced in the future by millions of people from greenhouse gas emissions that have already been emitted but not yet felt due to lags in the climate system; and,

• Will increase dramatically in the future unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced from existing global emissions levels.

Before the hysteria of the next ice age, er, global warming, er, climate change – I would almost be sure that for all of human history people have experienced climate change – its called weather.  People are killed every year with hurricanes and typhoons, heat waves cause some to die (mainly the very young and the old and sick), cold weather kills thousands every year, tornadoes, hailstorms, lightning–human beings have been experiencing WEATHER for as long as humanity has existed.  So I will grant the first point – tens of thousands of humans experience climate change every year.  I’d go so far so to say that every human being alive has had weather changes.

Point 2 – people will continue to experience weather.

Point 3 – prove it!  There is evidence that the planet has been substantially warmer than it is today and substantially colder.  Is there any evidence that people were responsible for those changes? There is speculation – but as with all things global in scope, there’s no real proof one way or another.  There is carbon dioxide being emitted by all these people breathing in and out!  Of course, there are ice cores and other scientific evidence showing far higher carbon dioxide levels in the past.  I’m almost certain there weren’t any coal-fired electricity generation plants and SUVs 10,000 years ago.  So the possibility that man has very little to do with the changes is dismissed by the hyteria crowd.

But one thing they want for sure – they want blood:

The corporations that have funded the sowing of doubt on this issue are clearly doing this because they see greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies as adversely affecting their financial interests.

This might be understood as a new type of crime against humanity.


We may not have a word for this type of crime yet, but the international community should find a way of classifying extraordinarily irresponsible scientific claims that could lead to mass suffering as some type of crime against humanity.

So just remenber – if you finance any investigations that go against the “scientific consensus” or you question any of the finding of your “betters” who have published “peer-reviewed science” – you could be charged with crimes against humanity!  At least if this little twerp has anything to say about it.

Up Against the Wall Deniers!

2 thoughts on “Criminalizing Dissent

  1. Great blog!

    Actually the current “the planet is going to burn up and its your fault unless we impoverish yourselves” philisophy has a lot in common with both christian and other “pagan” religions.

    In early christian europe, the “ruling class” had a deal with the church which went something like this. “You tell the people that we are kings and queens by god’s will and we will protect you and make sure you are wealthy.”
    However the church did extra well because they built all the wonderful cathedrals in Europe by exhorting money from the aristocracy by telling them they could thus keep from the descent into eternal damnation and burning.

    Pagan religions had something related. However the religious boffins there put some time into figuring out how to predict eclipses and other natural events, so the aristocracy had to pay up to prevent the end of the city/world etc as well.

    Are we any different now? We have scientific guru’s and politicians predicting the end of the world. The reason? “Its because you are so wealthy”. How can we prevent it? Pay up of course. Make ourselves into paupers while someone else becomes incredibly rich.
    Does the world need to be in danger to attain this?
    Not at all, just need enough people to believe in what they say.



  2. “In fact, 30 years ago the “science” community was screaming and yelling about the coming ice age.”

    No they weren’t

    “its called weather”

    No it’s not. “Weather” means maybe this year your crops die. “Climate” means they will die (almost) every year. The difference matters.

    “There is speculation”
    No, ther is s scientific fact. Try actually looking at the science instead of speculating.

    And so on

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s