Yet More Environmental Fascism: Put Global Warming Skeptics on Trial
James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.This is just the latest example of how the environmental jihadists advocate punishing those who disagree with them about anthropogenic global warming.
Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the “perfect storm” of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.
Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.
In an interview with the Guardian he said: “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.”
They, of course, invoke the precedent of the tobacco companies, who supposedly lied about the negative effects of smoking. But the looting of the tobacco companies was a shameful episode in the history of American jurisprudence.
Leaving aside the fact there there is plenty of room for skepticism about global warming, and plenty of reputable scientists who reject the hysteria, deciding your opponent is “lying” and therefore should be prosecuted for saying things you disagree with is simply way too convenient a way of silencing dissent.
The prevalence of this sort of fanaticism actually casts doubt on the scientific judgment of the scientists trying to shut up the debate.
If they are so driven to punish people who question anthropogenic global warming, are there some things about their beliefs and personality that cause them to (conveniently) exaggerate the threat and interpret the data in a biased way?
Are they not moralistic crusaders whose scientific views and legal views are both being driven by their fanaticism?