Lion of the Blogosphere

Elites want to put “climate change” skeptics in prison

The New York Times reports:

Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council…

Sounds like the modern version of the Spanish Inquisition.

* * *

Or a resurrection of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Instead of asking “are you a communist,” the new question is “are you a climate-change denier?”

* * *

The article also compares oil companies to tobacco companies. But unlike tobacco companies, which are selling something that’s strictly a vice, oil companies are selling a product that’s necessary for the modern world to function the way we know it.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 6, 2015 at 11:53 am

Posted in Law, Religion

29 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Leftists support free speech and scientific debate… unless it’s something they disagree with.


    November 6, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    • The time that leftists supported free speech is long past. They won the culture war, so they don’t need free speech anymore.

      Mike Street Station

      November 6, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      • As Susan Sontag once said, the Soviet Union does not need free speech. It already has communism.


        November 6, 2015 at 3:20 pm

      • map, if you have a source for that quote, I would like to have it. I came across it years ago and have tossed it out on occasion but have never been able to find online when Sontag actually said that. I think it was an interview but I can’t be sure.

        Mike Street Station

        November 6, 2015 at 3:28 pm

  2. It’s entirely unclear what these companies did that was allegedly illegal. Is the government alleging that they somehow misled investors? I really don’t get it.


    November 6, 2015 at 1:11 pm

  3. Well, liberals really do believe they are above it all, that they shed partisanship, ideology or mere subjectivity like the Homo sapiens shed it’s tail. As far they are concerned, modern science affirms all progressive premises. The apocalypse? That’s crazy bible thumper talk, but climate doom, pure cold logic (no pun intended), so why not strong-arm people into it?

    Doomsday cultists used to wait for the mothership hidden away, now one of them is the president!


    November 6, 2015 at 1:33 pm

  4. Climate change is what they expect, weather is what we get.


    November 6, 2015 at 1:44 pm

  5. New story:

    It turns out, not only did Ben Carson lie about his “violent youth”, it seems he was never even a neurosurgeon:


    November 6, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    • Uh, no. He is not lying about being a neurosurgeon. Are you unable to read?


      November 6, 2015 at 2:21 pm

      • Sarcasm is hard.

        Half canadian

        November 6, 2015 at 5:19 pm

    • If only they’d vetted Obama one third as much,

      slithy toves

      November 6, 2015 at 8:15 pm

  6. Climate change denial is mood affiliation, just ask Tyler Cowen.


    November 6, 2015 at 2:13 pm

  7. Most of these skeptics are the prolier of the proles. Because the ones who “believe” in it wholeheartedly, tend to be SWPLs, especially those in working in Academia. I said prolier, because most Meriproles believe in some form of climate change, despite not understanding if it has any validity.


    November 6, 2015 at 5:18 pm

  8. This is Pro Bowl-level trolling.

    The idea of prosecuting climate change skeptics is intended to cause various right-wingers to scream about free speech, the criminalization of policy change, etc.

    It’s real goal is to remind people that climate change skeptics hold an unpopular view and that all of the cool people believe in Gaia.

    Well played.


    November 6, 2015 at 6:32 pm

  9. They’re investigating them to see if they lied and hid research about the effects of greenhouse gases hoping to prosecute them the same way that tobacco companies were for lying about internal studies about the effects of cigarettes. Can noone on this site read?

    Lloyd Llewellyn

    November 6, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    • Tobacco is a vice that directly harms the person who uses it. Petroleum products bring great direct benefit to those who buy them. Unlike with the link between tobacco and cancer, it’s impossible to prove that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 6, 2015 at 7:20 pm

      • Why is it impossible to prove? The climate system and the human body are roughly similar in terms of complexity. There’s only one climate to study and many different human bodies but I don’t think that’s insurmountable.

        I agree that oil is has benefits that tobacco doesn’t but it also has costs that tobacco doesn’t such as as its corrupting influence on military and international politics. But the article isn’t about that its about whether or not energy companies are covering up and contradicting the results of internal studies like tobacco companies did.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        November 6, 2015 at 8:40 pm

      • You would need two identical planets orbiting the same star, and you flood one planet with CO2 and not the other one, and see what happens. An impossible experiment.

        On the other hand, whether a substance is carcinogenic is easily tested on rats.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 6, 2015 at 9:19 pm

      • “Impossible”?? Well, thanks for clarifying your unfalsifiable view. The greenhouse effect is a scurrilous lie! Carbon emissions are a well-known externality, thus well-within the purview of government regulation.

        The world would become a far more interesting place if oil companies began subsidizing vegan activists who want to shift blame from the automobile to our obscenely inefficient — and obscene in general — production of meat.


        November 6, 2015 at 9:24 pm

      • Carcinogen tests are also flawed because they involve giving animals with anatomies similar to but by no means identical to humans very very high doses of suspected carcinogens that no human being is ever actually exposed to. Many chemicals found naturally in fruits and vegetables are classified as carcinogens using this methodology. My understanding is that the case against smoking was built much more form comparing smoking to non smoking humans.

        Lloyd Llewellyn

        November 7, 2015 at 8:57 am

      • Are we having this argument again?

        Tobacco is carcinogenic because of the absence of lung cancer in patients that do not smoke. Tobacco has long been known to be an unhealthy vice and tobacco companies were unfairly railroaded.

        Climate science has no predictive history. If you ask a climate scientist to provide you with an observable prediction in, say, 6 months, that is both significant and non-obvious, he could not do it. Climate scientists have no demonstrable examples that they understand what they are talking about. Physicists have the atom bomb and chemists have plastics.

        Bottom line is, as a matter of public policy, science can only be trusted at the point when it becomes engineering. If a machine or even a simple physical object cannot be made from the physical principles that are expounded, then, chances are, those physical principles are wrong.


        November 9, 2015 at 11:59 pm

  10. It has been said that the entire point of Soviet propaganda was not to change peoples’ minds, but to force people who did not believe in what was being crammed down their throats to repeat those ideas and endorse them. The real goal was humiliation rather than persuasion.

    Pick any of the secular sacraments of the left, and you can see that on display: we’re harming the planet, our diversity is our strength, race does not exist, every child has the same capacity to learn, etc. etc. The ruling liberal elites certainly don’t live their own lives like they believe this stuff, but they do behave like they want to humiliate anyone who they view as occupying a lesser station in life.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    November 6, 2015 at 8:57 pm

  11. peterike

    November 6, 2015 at 11:01 pm

  12. It’s all bs, dishonesty and manipulation from the first words uttered, the phrase “climate change denier” itself is a red herring, they should somehow work white privilege in for even more effect!


    November 7, 2015 at 2:53 am

  13. Remember when our POTUS flew to Florida to tell us how bad climate change is? Me neither…


    November 7, 2015 at 10:28 am

  14. The tabacco litigation became the model for the left. After they won the campaign (with the help of John McCain), they realized that the way to get the cash was sue, shame and then offer crony capitalist protections. That’s basically Obamacare – offer the hospitals and insurance companies monopolies in exchange for becoming a regulated sector of the economy, like utilities or tobacco. It’s the same with the CRA and banks. And now the tobacco model is being applied to the oil companies. It’s only a matter of time before the same happens to pharma and the food companies. Coca-cola and McDonalds will be sued for hiding the dangerous effects of sugar. Sugar is poison, remember.


    November 7, 2015 at 10:34 am

  15. And after the HUAC hearings will come the naming of names in order to work again.


    November 7, 2015 at 11:03 am

  16. Or campus administrators who fail to sufficiently validate their manufactured psychological injuries. This is not to be believed, and yet . . .


    November 7, 2015 at 12:27 pm

  17. These buzzards are really circling the corpse of the media’s dead credibility. I love that Bill Nye weasel. I remember this clown playing the assistant of Doctor Emmet Brown on The Back To The Future Saturday Morning Cartoon, and now he’s taken Weird Algore’s place as the official spokeschair for Climate Voodoo. How exactly are these Witch Doctors planning on changing the weather? Do they have a Super Secret Weather Machine from Spectre or Thrush?
    This is just a giant tax rip-off by the Criminals at the UN and NGOs to “help” the po’ brown folks by stealing the lion’s share of the money and giving the peanuts to the monkeys. Remember Climategate? All those e-mails by “climatologists” talking to each other about faking the data to make money were enough to convince people this is just another Leftist scam. Like Early Childhood Education for Negro Retards. If we get them early enough they won’t be stupid like the other low IQ chillen. Yeah, sure. Tell it to the Whirlwind.

    Joshua Sinistar

    November 9, 2015 at 1:27 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: