It’s crazy that a bill like this should even be necessary:
Lockman, however, wants to protect all people with opinions on global warming and prevent a Republican attorney general from conducting a similar investigation.
“I don’t want to see a Republican state attorney general issuing subpoenas for the records of progressive or liberal think tanks or public policy groups to chill their free speech,” Lockman told AP.
“It’s about Citizens United and the government abridging speech,” Lockman said. “It’s not about climate science. It’s about climate policy.”
Maine Democrats and environmentalists oppose Lockman’s bill, so it doesn’t have much hope of passing. Some environmentalists apparently want state prosecutors to be able to investigate “climate deniers.”
“Clearly an attempt to provide cover for climate deniers,” Dylan Voorhees, with the Natural Resources Council of Maine, told AP. “I see a trickle down from the Trump administration that has emboldened some folks to make climate denial statements.”
Calling skeptics “deniers” is slanderous, unscientific, and trivializes the Holocaust.
A few years ago, I toured the Holocaust Museum in DC. The exhibit that really “got” me was a meandering street exhibit, which took one through time along a German street. The progression shown was the demonization of the Jews. It struck me at the time that this was what was happening to those of us skeptical of the claims of the climate supremacists. To me, the term “denier” doesn’t connote “Holocaust denier.” It denotes the Nazi’s derogatory use of the word “Jew.” Those of us who disagree with the claims of climate supremacists are the new “Jew.” That is a compounding of the horribleness of the term “denier”.
I cannot begin to describe how incredibly offensive this statement is. Those who believe in science are not “supremacists.” We do not wish for those who are skeptical (to use your term) of climate change to be MURDERED wholesale. We simply want public policy to proceed along a path that is congruent with what 97% of climate scientists understand about our planet and the role of anthropogenic carbon emissions. I agree its a stupid bill (put forth by a climate skeptic, no less), but to equate a deep concern for PROTECTING life from the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change with Nazism goes much much too far. I doubt very much that this post will have any effect on the way “MfK” or others reading this post will feel, and that in itself is sad. Let’s sit down and discuss the evidence, policies, effects, and possible solutions, rather than demonize each other.
Do you understand what an oxymoron “believe in science” is? There are in fact people who think that those who question the hysteria should be jailed (including, among otherse, Bill Nye), and even some who think that the world would be better off without them.
“Belief in science” is just another example of how the Progressive Left takes over existing institutions and corrupts them to further its totalitarian goals.
Note how often the people who “believe in science” also will profess to “believe” in pseudo-scientific Marxism, which is to Economics what Creationism is to Evolutionary Biology. Well, maybe they don’t “believe” in Marxism, but every solution to every large problem (“climate change”, “health care”, “civil rights”, etc.) seems to demand its imposition.
Oh, there’s that 97% again. Look around a little and find the details of how that was derived.
Ok evidence that anything terrible is happening? Zero. Only evidence for any noticeable effect is greening of planet. We’ve now also got a better safety margin over the minimum CO2 levels for plant survival (and all animals including us). What should our policy on this be? Clearly monitor but take no action as yet.
If you are really worried about CO2 you should be promoting nuclear power. How many letters have you written to your Congress person about this?
The bill Rand is talking about is to protect free speech, something we don’t have here in Australia (sad story) and we soon won’t have reliable electricity as the governments, urged on by the batshit insane Greens, shut down our coal fired power plants. See South Australia, and in a week or so Victoria will shut down 25% of its electrical generating capacity.
Will the US take Australian refugees fleeing oppressive government and third world conditions?
As for not wishing us to be murdered wholesale, seen the 10 – 10 video?
You might be better off taking your sanctimonious “concern” back to whateverleft wing echo chamber you came from. If you want to go to space sites I’d suggest Parabolic Arc. It appears to be run by an AGW loon.
We simply want public policy to proceed along a path that is congruent with what 97% of climate scientists
97% of scientists, climate or otherwise, don’t agree on policy. The regressive policies are not going to stop the climate from changing.
the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change
This end of days prophecy is pretty silly. I am surprised that an alleged believer in science would fall for the old, do what we say or the world ends scam. Religions like that always flame out like Jonestown or Heaven’s Gate.
I cannot begin to describe how incredibly offensive this statement is.
Well, his comment only came about because AGW alarmists intentionally chose the term denier to equate skeptics with Holocaust deniers. You can’t really get upset when someone uses the same metaphor to relate how skeptics are treated by those who follow an ideology based on supremacism over other humans and nature.