YOU'RE A GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTIC? THEN YOU'RE A CRIMINAL!
I'm a global warming skeptic. I believe that there has been some warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the last 20 years or so, but I do not believe that this warming has been primarily caused by man. In fact, I don't believe man has been much of a factor at all.
That makes me a criminal. That means I should be put on trial for "crimes against humanity."
This is the idea of David Roberts, a staff writer for Grist magazine. You may not have heard of Grist, but Al Gore has. Bill Moyers the hard-left so-called "newsman" from PBS has. They've granted interviews to Grist to push their global warming agendas. David Roberts is now calling for trials for war-crimes trials for people who express doubts that global warming is caused by man. He calls these people "bastards" and refers to the global warming "denial industry." Roberts is suggesting trials for these skeptics that mirror the Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Holocaust.
Al Gore seems to be part of the Roberts crowd. He calls people like me "global warming deniers," a not so vague reference to "Holocaust deniers." An odd phrase for Gore to use considering the fact that his buddy Roberts is calling for Nuremburg-style trials.
So ... this is the status of free speech in 21st Century America for anyone who disagrees with the thoughts put forth by the anti-capitalist environmental crowd.
Do I need a lawyer yet?
Do we?
I'd like to see them try to put me on trial for expressing my opinion, in America. That would be briefly entertaining:
My lawyer: "Your honor, I move for dismissal on the grounds that my client was merely exercising his right to freedom of expression, under the First Amendment of the US Constitution."
Judge: "So ordered."
Me: "I'm gonna write a book about this."
But I find this an interesting point, because if man-made global warming is a fact which all climate scientists agree on, why do they have to put people on trial for disagreeing with it? Why is it a crime worthy of prosecution to disagree?
Or, hmm, is it just possible that these people know that their opinions about the Earth's ecosystem can't stand real, scientific scrutiny? That whenever their claims are checked, they turn out to be either falsified or wildly exaggerated?
I think this illustrates--again--a central issue with people on that side of the aisle. Civilized disagreement is impossible; if you disagree with them, you are a bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobe, who is ignorant, stupid, evil, and crazy; and you deserve to be put in jail for not agreeing with them.
How typical.
