How’s this for ‘tolerance’: Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics?

What to say about this but wow:

A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (LINK ) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” (LINK ) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming.

Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” (LINK )

Gore and Moyers have not yet commented on Grist’s advocacy of prosecuting skeptics of global warming with a Nuremberg-style war crimes trial. Gore has used the phrase “global warming deniers” to describe scientists and others who don’t share his view of the Earth’s climate. It remains to be seen what Gore and Moyers will have to say about proposals to make skepticism a crime comparable to Holocaust atrocities.

The use of Holocaust terminology has drawn the ire of Roger Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “The phrase â€˜climate change denier’ is meant to be evocative of the phrase â€˜holocaust denier,'” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006 (LINK).

I, too, would like to know what Gore and Moyers think of Roberts’ advocacy of Nuremburg-style trials for people who simply disagree with them as to the alleged merits of the theory of global warming. Just imagine had this suggestion come from someone on the right hand side of the aisle. We’d have hearings on the Hill, mass protests in front of the man (or woman’s) home, Bush would be blamed …

Let the Grist editors know what you think.

Hat tip: ST readers DS and Severian

Prior:

19 Responses to "How’s this for ‘tolerance’: Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics?"

The Bethie Bee » Blog Archive » Nuremberg-Style Trials Proposed For Global Warming Skeptics says:

October 12, 2006 at 1:27 pm

[…] H/T: Sister Toldjah 10/12/06 12:27 pm […]
Maggie's Farm says:

October 12, 2006 at 4:20 pm

Thursday Afternoon Links

Like totally cool YouTube of how a computer can understand your diagrams. YARGBHas anyone not yet seen Zucker’s Repub campaign commercial, deemed "too hot" by the RNC? Rather amusing. DrudgeCat’s teeth, and how the Lancet derived 654,000 de…
Aghast says:

October 12, 2006 at 5:56 pm

I’m willing to be subjected to a nueremburg-style trial if I turn out to be wrong, and the result of my turning out to be wrong is more dead people than there otherwise would have been.

How bout you Sev? Baklava? Since you KNOW it’s a hoax, there really isn’t any danger of those trials ever coming to fruition right? So why don’t you agree to submit to them if you turn out to be wrong?

On a totally non-snarky note, the Chinese operate on a policy of “severe incompetence is no different from malice” and execute leaders whose failures result death. Naggin and Brownie would both be executed had they been chinese.

If global warming deniers turn out to be wrong, to have deliberately falsified data, and their denial has cost lives, I have no problem with punishing them, and I would expect the same standard to be applied to myself. Though It’s hard to argue that believing in global warming will result in anyone’s death.
Severian says:

October 12, 2006 at 6:05 pm

You shouldn’t be so quick to sign up for that Aghast. The idiotic and non-scientifically valid banning of DDT, for example, has cost millions of lives in Africa and other tropical countries, not that that really matters to the environmentalists. The important thing is that they feel good about “saving the planet” over their morning latte’s.
Aghast says:

October 12, 2006 at 6:37 pm

Hey, I agree there are environmentalists who go way too far.

For me, the goal of an environmentalist SHOULD be to provide stewardship over the environment in a way that benefits humankind to maximum effect. Those who see humans as the problem (not the beneficiary), aren’t going to do any of us any good.

But enviro-nuts weren’t responsible for the “ban” of DDT (it’s been used as recently as 1994, and isn’t banned in most countries). I’ve read it was insects’ growing resistance to DDT that was the reason for its disuse.

The example I like to use is Salmon. It’s true that PCB’s in farmed salmon will kill some people. It’s true that salmon has more mercury in it now than ever before, blah blah blah. Problem is, the increased health risks of both PCB and mercury intake are totally outweighed by the benefits of Omega-3 fatty acids.

So farmed salmon is very safe to eat…sure, 20 in 100,000 will die from the PCB’s and mercury. But 500 others whould would have died of heart failure will get to live instead, due to the benefits of Omega-3.

I’m capable of accepting things that fall outside my political agenda, if there’s compelling evidence.

lattes? I had a breve (MUCH better than a latte, cmon!) this morning!
stoo says:

October 12, 2006 at 7:36 pm

The most striking issue (to me) is the willingness to put someone on trial for insufficient belief.

What next? Green party meetings? Those that don’t attend 5 times per day go on some list?

Or will it suffice to acknowledge that as a non-believer, one is subject to the whims of all true believers?
Baklava says:

October 12, 2006 at 8:14 pm

Aghast with fascist principles wrote, “If global warming deniers turn out to be wrong, to have deliberately falsified data, and their denial has cost lives, I have no problem with punishing them”

Big government / Leftism / fascism on parade here. Let me just say, I argue vigorously for leftists to be able to show their stupidity and state their beliefs openly and would not want liberals to be subject to trials for stating such patently false things that they state. Liberals cost lives with economic policies that cause more hardship. Double digit unemployment rates in European countries due to their policies and while this country has had bigger and bigger government every year for over 6 decades (leftism) even though Republicans were in power during some of those years we haven’t reached the level of stupidity cause by leftist beliefs in other countries yet. I do NOT BELIEVE that leftists should be held accountable for their policies that are “well intentioned” but cost lives and hardship.

It is not a question about whether or not tmperatures rose in some years or dropped since 1998. It is a matter of principle that we can FREELY discuss these things without having a chilling effect by fascists lefties who think they own the marketplace on truth concerning global warming. They DON’T. There are scientists on all sides of the spectrum and the KEY arguments about what do Americans do POLICY wise is just like arguments about what do whe do with taxes and spending concerning economic policies. When delving into these issues we realize well wait a minute… before we make policies limiting CO2 output, is it conclusive that CO2 output is the cause for global warming. For leftists to PLUG their ears to arguments about the suns heat output increasing and decreasing and CO2 being higher in previous centuries yet the earth was cooler is not only typical of a leftists pattern of debate but then waht follows is attacks and threats of shutting down free speech. That my scary co-poster is fascism at it’s finest. I hope to heaven that you and your kind do not get more power because I love this country and our ability to discuss, argue, throw around ideas and issues and yet liberals today seem very incapable of delving into anything but name calling and throwing out accusations and attacks.

While I’m being a little free with my words here, I’m doing so with the full hope that I shock you into understanding the necessity of freedom of expression.
Lorica says:

October 12, 2006 at 8:38 pm

LOL Ahhhh the tolerant left, they are such funny individuals. Thank God Al Gore will be there to prosecute any smoking non believers. Liberalism it is the religion of tolerance, as long as you believe every moon bat thought that escapes their tiny brains.

My new thoughts on ‘global warming’ comes from some archeoligical digs in Greenland. They keep finding Norse settlements under the ice of Greenland, but the thought never occurs to the left that the Vikings wouldn’t be able to have these agricultural settlements if it were not for a serious lack of ice. Here is an example from an article.

http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=776

A massive ice sheet covers about 85 per cent of Greenland, about 2,600,000 cubic kilometres of ice–enough to raise sea levels by 6.4 metres if it were to melt. Sheets of ice sliding down the mountain toward GUS may have pushed sand over the eastern coast of Greenland, burying the Viking settlements. The sand slide was probably a major catastrophic event, comparable to an earthquake.

Now my question is, how could the Norse farm the land if the ice was there?? My next question is, If the ice wasn’t there then and water lvls were normal, how could it raise the level of the oceans now?? It’s not like the earth is creating more water, of that commodity we pretty much have the same amount we started with. – Lorica
Baklava says:

October 12, 2006 at 9:19 pm

Off to court for you Lorica. You are evil and dangerous and we need to chill speech like yours…
Great White Rat says:

October 12, 2006 at 9:54 pm

Basically, this bunch of mainstream libs is saying agree with us or we’ll kill you.

No wonder our leftists get along so famously with the islamofascists. They do seem to have some things in common, don’t they?

Wonder what their explanation is for the global warming now taking place on Mars (see here and here)? Too many Martians driving SUVs? Or, more likely (all together now) BLAME BUSH!!
Big Bang Hunter says:

October 13, 2006 at 12:46 am

– You know aghast, it’s simply amazing to read some of your posts. I have to pinch myself to make sure we’re here in the USA in the year 2006, and not sitting beside the Rhine in the 30’s. Do you SP’s every stop for a minute and listen to your own words?

– Goebels would be busting with pride. the progg’s defenately need serious professional help. Aside from that if I were advising you, knowing the kinds of things you slip around posting, I’d strongly advise you to keep it anonymous in the blog forums. There are still some around who suffered greatly under the boot of the regime you seem to take great delight in immulating. Some who might consider it stark aggression against their safety. Just a thought.

– Bang
Baklava says:

October 13, 2006 at 1:53 am

Maybe Tammy Bruce should be tried tomorrow. She has comments about the snow in Chicago. So irresponsible of her.

First GWR with the Martian SUV’s now Tammy Bruce. I can’t handle all of these people who are in trouble with the law now…… We need to just all SUBMIT to the leftists’ train of thought…. you know…. submit or be punished…. just like the Islamofascists tell us…. I’m beginning to be at peace with becoming a muslim and giving up my minivan and stop reading anybody like GWR and Tammy Bruce..
Aghast says:

October 13, 2006 at 2:09 am

I think the idea was more along the lines of punishing people who falsify science for political or economic gain, not punishing people who believe that science. I think most here genuinely believe global warming is a hoax… i don’t think you are guilty of anything beyond believing bad science (as you accuse me of doing), which is not a punishable crime in any leftist’s book.

The person quoted in the original post above was obviously speaking emotionally, but he’s obviously not saying that people should be punished for simply believing something, or even spreading lies. Its the people who knowingly spread falshoods that should rightly be punished if it turns out to result in dead people.

And it’s all hypothetical anyway… we libs believe in due process, so we’d have to proove, 1. they knew GW was for real 2. they lied about it 3. people died or $X amount of economic damage was done. It’s very tough to prove malice… incompetence looks almost the same, and would provide a defense in this case.

If that could actually be proven, wouldn’t you want to punish the people responsible? If the people who have convinced you that global warming is a hoax come out and say, “OK, I lied, I’m just a hack trying to make a living”, you’d be pissed, no?

If they could prove it the other way around, I’d be pissed too….but they haven’t.

Now that I look at that list, it’s actually a classic example of a class action lawsuit. The same principles apply to asbestos/mesothelioma, cars/exploding gas tanks, cigarettes/cancer. Though I know Bush republicans never want corporations to take responsibility for anything, so this fits with the pattern.

Funny how lorica mentions evidence of warmer periods in the past. Funny how that isn’t denied by global warming scientists, and how it doesn’t have any bearing on the debate today. It must make her feel good to post what seems, to her, to be obvious evidence that global warming is a hoax. If you are going to call liberals stupid regarding global warming, you might want to try looking at the science instead of making inferences from a show about norse farmers.

The earth gains more water every day from comets, by the way, though that’s not why the Norse had farmland, as the effect only adds 1 inch of water to the surface of the Earth every 20,000 years.
Baklava says:

October 13, 2006 at 2:32 am

You’d have to punish God Aghast. The darn weather itself proves it’s a hoax. Bad science I say.

Mars is getting warmer too….. Bad science I say…

The only people perpetuating bad science that I see is the ones who fail to believe they should be questioned about their methodology and thier hockey stick graphs… People have raised serious and good questions and pointed out errors in their methods and you call it bad science and instead of allowing for freedom of tossing these words back and forth you want to punish those who have raised serious concerns with the methodology of those who want to stick to the hockey stick graph. Why not delve into what those who are saying about the errors are saying? Why plug your ears? Why dismiss it as bad science when these things are said?

Do I want Nuremberg trials for those who keep on with the bad science hockey stick graphs and perpetuate lies? No. I recognize their right to exist and speak. Maybe we’ll all LEARN and we’ll ADVANCE from the debate.

Of course leave it to a lefty to think it’s just a bunch of people who will come out utopian like and say “OK, I lied, Im just a hack trying to make a living”. Dream on Aghast. There are too many serious questions raised by too many serious scientists. 15,000 of them were against Kyoto. 95-0 Senators voted against Kyoto. There isn’t just science involved but the question about POLICY also. Lefties do not have the right policy on the table for all of their “good intentions”. They have the wrong policy on the table. Sure we should do things to be responsible humans and treat Mother Earth well. The question is how and through what policy. Liberals think they have the key issue to bludgeon conservatives with instead of realizing that we need to work together and work on about 100 solutions together. When liberals stop with the attack and accuse pattern and realize that they aren’t the only “well intentioned” people on the planet then we might actually start dialoging. They might understand what we are saying when we say we care but your solution won’t get us to the good end result. Maybe we’d have some give and take instead of attack us and then we defend ourselves….

You might want to read more Lorica to figure out that person’s gender….

What Lorica said is relevant because there have been cooler times in the past with MORE CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer times with LESS CO2 in the atmosphere and nobody can explain why that is. Neither can you Aghast. The only thing you can do is dismiss these things as irrelevent to today’s debate when in fact it is relevant…..
Big Bang Hunter says:

October 13, 2006 at 11:14 am

– It’s not even “junk science” anymore. With all the exposing of faked data, and misread info seeping out of some of the Progg “global hot-air” scam’s, it’s just “fake science”. The more Secular Progg’s try to look like the “great saviors” of the Planet, the more they look like the fools they are. Just one more “Big Fat Example” of arrogant Elitism.

– Bang
Baklava says:

October 13, 2006 at 11:54 am

Let’s start prosecuting those who predicted temperatures 10 – 20 degrees cooler OR warmer a few decades ago. Darned liars who faked data

Just kidding. I don’t believe like Aghast does. I’m happy to have information come out that exposes these “caring” freaks as frauds (or incorrect at least) and happy that they had the right to speak in the first place.
Severian says:

October 13, 2006 at 12:45 pm

By the logic of those in favor of this kind of inquisition, people who have supported the banning of DDT should be brought before the World Court and charged with genocide. Better be careful what you wish for guys…
Lorica says:

October 13, 2006 at 1:08 pm

Who says this isn’t about the money?? From an article on The Drudge Report:

By contrast, spending just 1.6 trillion pounds a year now to limit temperature rises to two degrees could avoid annual economic damage of around 6.4 trillion pounds, the Tufts report said.

That’s like 2.4 TRILLION Dollars US!!!! Hell that is more than the whole budget. Talk about a budget deficit. When Krakatoa blew it’s top in the 1800s how many tons of pollution went into the air then?? I have to wonder how the governments of the world handled that mess. – Lorica
Baklava says:

October 15, 2006 at 9:47 pm

I read a lot of Debra Saunder’s work. This one is good. And it’s about Ihofe.

Comments are closed.