Climate Change

The Transparency Bullies

Climate change skeptics have rights to free speech and privacy, too.


Should we just go ahead and throw global warming deniers in jail?

A surprising number of pundits and politicians suddenly seem to think that's not such an outrageous idea. "Was it appropriate to jail the guys from Enron?" Bill Nye, a.k.a. the Science Guy, mused in an April interview with Climate Depot. "We'll see what happens. Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive, and so on?" Nye, the former host of a popular PBS show in the 1990s, maintains that those who doubt the severity of, and human impact on, the warming climate, "are leaving the world worse than they found it because they are keeping us from getting to work. They are holding us back."

In March, Al Gore appeared at a remarkable meeting of state attorneys general in New York City. Gore's casually authoritarian remarks at the conference—the former vice president insisted that "we cannot continue to allow" the fossil fuel industry to pursue its current pastime of "mislead[ing] the public about the impact they have on the health of our people and the health of our planet"—echoed the intolerant sentiment that Nye had displayed in a Salon interview five months prior. "Part of the solution," the Science Guy said then, "is getting the deniers out of our discourse. You know, we can't have these people—they're absolutely toxic."

This sore-winner urge to censure, untethered to government force, would merely be repugnant, an example of what critics during the Bush administration once decried in other contexts as "eliminationist rhetoric." But Gore was standing literally side by side with power-wielding politicians who brag about making life a living hell for the incorrectly opinionated. "Our offices are seriously examining the potential of working together on high-impact, state-level initiatives," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman crowed at the March conference, "such as investigations into whether fossil fuel companies have misled investors about how climate change impacts their investments and business decisions."

How would a law enforcement official know more about how climate change impacts an energy producer's "investments and business decisions" than the corporation itself? Consider the case of the publicly traded coal giant Peabody Energy. Beginning in 2011, when Peabody was trading at around $1,000 per share, the company began including in its annual report this forward-looking caution against the potential downside effects of future environmental rules: "Enactment of laws or passage of regulations regarding emissions from the combustion of coal by the U.S. or some of its states or by other countries, or other actions to limit such emissions, could result in electricity generators switching from coal to other fuel sources."

This warning indeed turned out to be prescient—Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, coupled with the explosion of natural gas production, took a huge bite out of domestic coal. But for Schneiderman, this nod was too little and too late.

The New York attorney general in 2013 launched an investigation into eight years' worth of Peabody communications, concluding that its public filings were neither pessimistic enough about the coal market nor omniscient enough in forecasting, then last November extracted a settlement in which the company admitted no wrongdoing and in the end did little more than slightly tweak its reporting language. "I believe that full and fair disclosures by Peabody and other fossil fuel companies will lead investors to think long and hard about the damage these companies are doing to our planet," he insisted.

By then the damage was done: Peabody, once the largest non-state-owned coal company in the world, now trades at less than $2 per share. In April, it filed for bankruptcy.

Oil giant ExxonMobil has not yet suffered this grim fate, though not for lack of activist exertion. In an October 2014 EcoWatch article titled "Jailing Climate Deniers," Robert F. Kennedy Jr. posited that "Koch Industries and ExxonMobil have particularly distinguished themselves as candidates for corporate death," because "no other companies have worked harder or spent more money to impede the government from taking action on global warming to safeguard public welfare."

Crimes worthy of RFK Jr.'s corporate death penalty include donating money to nonprofit advocacy groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Heritage Foundation. "These front groups are snake pits for sociopaths," he hissed.

Schneiderman et al. are acting as if they agree with Kennedy's rants. Last November, the attorney general played the Peabody Energy card with ExxonMobil, subpoenaing nearly four decades' worth of internal communication in an attempt to see whether the company had failed to disclose to investors that it was aware of research showing that carbon emissions were making the planet warmer. In March, former EPA lawyer and current Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker issued another subpoena to ExxonMobil, essentially demanding all documented instances when the company even talked about climate change, including in communications with CEI, Heritage, and nearly 100 other research or advocacy groups (including the Reason Foundation, which publishes this magazine, and which received donations from ExxonMobil many years ago).

CEI, which had derided these fishing expeditions as unconstitutional attempts to suppress disfavored speech, was then hit with a Virgin Islands subpoena of its own, demanding (in CEI's wording) "communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI's work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information," covering the decade from 1997 to 2007. "This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate," the organization said, in a statement vowing to resist.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, an enthusiastic member of the Gore-friendly A.G. team, has also been at the forefront of one-way transparency; i.e., government attempts to force disclosure of donors to hated nonprofits. In April, a district court judge ruled against Harris' threat to prohibit the California fundraising activities of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a 501(c)(3) associated with Charles and David Koch, unless the group discloses all donors above the $5,000 level. (David Koch, chairman of AFP's board, also sits on the board of the Reason Foundation.) That court decision now heads to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; meanwhile, a successful Harris attempt to inflict the same disclosure requirement on the pro-speech Center for Competitive Politics is currently at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has a robust track record of defending free speech. But with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and with both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders saying their Supreme Court nominee litmus test will be a willingness to overturn the political speech case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, continued defense of a robust understanding of the First Amendment is far from assured in the coming decade. Given the Court's tendency to follow public opinion, and the current cultural backsliding on free speech from the campus to the newsroom, these next few years could prove an unpleasant jurisprudential turning point.

It is apparently necessary in 2016 to state what should be constitutionally and morally obvious: Criminalizing unpopular opinions in the name of progress is the work of dictators, not scientists. Giving politicians access to the inner workings of private groups engaged in policy analysis and advocacy will produce selective and nakedly political legal harassment. Today's new powers exercised by Attorney General Harris will be tomorrow's new enforcement tool exploited by President Donald Trump.

The United States—for the moment, anyway—enjoys a First Amendment bulwark against the illiberal fantasies of frustrated activists. Keeping the one-way transparency advocates at bay will be an important bellwether for the future of American freedom.

NEXT: Sanders Supporters May Lose the Presidency Today, but Win the Party

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


    What bothers me is not that people feel strongly about their point of view. It's that so many people in positions of power are willing to sacrifice principle for the short-term goal of forcing their own view down others' throats. (And so many people who vote for them are apparently willing to just swallow.)

    I am reminded of that Thomas Paine quote: "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

    1. You are going to have to provide some evidence that those "people in positions of power" ever had any "principles" to be sacrificed.


      I'm skeptical.

      1. Those who DENY that Government Almighty LOVES us ALL, are obviously deceitful liars, peddling a deceptive, falsely advertised product!
        Let me lead us all now in prayer against them and their ilk:

        Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty's Wrath Delivers

        Government loves me, This I know,
        For the Government tells me so,
        Little ones to GAWD belong,
        We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        My Nannies tell me so!

        GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
        Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
        Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
        And gives me all that I might need!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        My Nannies tell me so!

        DEA, CIA, KGB,
        Our protectors, they will be,
        FBI, TSA, and FDA,
        With us, astride us, in every way!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
        My Nannies tell me so!

        1. You need new material.

          1. I tell people to come here and read more articles from a libertarian perspective. Comments like SQRLSY's are on the list of things that make that hard to do.

    2. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    3. My neighbor's half-sister got paid $18590 last month. she been working on the internet and moved in a $397900 home. All she did was get blessed and apply the instructions uncovered on this website..

      browse this site.... Go Here._______________

    4. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily... You can earn from 8000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job...It's easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish... It's a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail...
      Go This Website.________

  2. First they came after the climate deniers and I said nothing. Then they came after the addiction science deniers - and I said, "Enjoy your visit to the looney bin, freaks."

    1. You, also, need new material.

      1. Here is something very new: no one should be whimpering about "free speech" when any kind of deceit is involved, as it arguable is here. Hell, it's even grossly irresponsible to invoke the "First Amendment" when an accusatory academic "parody" is so inappropriately deadpan that it arises to an act of criminal deceit. Would any of the "free speech" whiners dare to defend the outrageous "First Amendment dissent" filed by a single, isolated, liberal judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:

    2. Bill Nye, Fuck That Guy

  3. I hate fuckers like Nye and RFK junior with the fire of a thousand suns.

    Those fuckers don't deserve to be called Americans. They can bow and capitulate to Stalin's fucking grave and pine for fucking Communism all they want.

    They are the fucking enemy.

    I have other things I'd want to say, but fucking overzealous fucking States Attorneys may be watching these comments. They're Fucking traitorous assholes too.

    1. Thank you for this - it's a good example of how the Trumpkins are infiltrating the LP to make it seem extremist and crazy. OK good luck with that strategy, let me know how it works out for you.

      1. On behalf of all libertarians I'd like to let you know that we really do appreciate you policing threads and calling out all the unlibertarian badthink.

        Really, we do.

      2. Fuck off, tuuuuuulllllllllllppppppppaaaaaaa.

        1. Tulsa?
          I thought AM was Shreek.

          1. We're all Tulpa; this is known.

            1. BTW, I love the conspiratorial thinking that every new dumbass must be an old dumbass trying to sneak back in under a new handle. Because, you know, the world isn't making any more new dumbasses.

  4. While I commend Bill Nye for his efforts to make science "fun and cool" to youngsters, who the hell is he? What is discipline? Is he a climatologist, or astrophysicist, or just a run of the mill high school science teacher? If he is not a climatologist, then his opinion is just as worthless as mine. You don't go to ENT to diagnose your colon cancer. And if asked, your ENT would defer to your oncologist about your diagnosis.

    I, myself am not a "denier", just a "you have not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt"er. I consider weather a subset of climate. Our weathermen cannot accurately predict weather more than 12 hours in advance, especially due to the numerous variables. They see a tropical storm forming off the coast of Africa, but cannot tell you for certain what category it will be when it hits the US mainland, or even where, or if, it will hit mainland. But yet, our climatologists can predict sea level rise to the mm hundred years from now? My skeptic alarm is buzzing at full tilt.

    1. Your example is a bad reason to doubt global warming. There are excellent reasons - global temp does not correlate with CO2 levels. Correlation is not causation, but anti correlation IS proof of lack of causation. The models are not able to hind cast temperatures before 1970 at any level of accuracy. There are long periods of no warming. Earth cooled from ~1000 to 1650, and has been coming out of that little ice age since.

    2. Nye has a BS in Mechanical Engineering. That's it.

      1. Oh. I thought it was in Mechanical Derpineering.

        1. No, that degree didn't exist until sometime in the 90s.

      2. When it comes to climate it's more like engineering BS

    3. Do you know what a regression line is and how data points scatter around it? We can predict the average values - that's the line - but not each individual point. Climate is the line; weather is the scattered points.

      1. Except that climate models can't do either. Even when 'predicting' weather/climate that's already happened.

  5. Anyone espousing anti-economic lies does far more damage to society. Minimum wage, occupational licensing, trade restrictions all hurt the poor now in far more ways than climate skeptics even if the global warmists turn out to be correct at the end of the century.

    1. I'm in Washington DC right now. Today the radio here gleefully announced the local pols voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage to $15, and the mayor "can't wait to sign it into law,"

      What's happens when there is the inevitable resulting huge jump in unemployment, especially among the local majority African American population? Will it be immediately blamed on Kulaks? 'Can't wait' to see how they'll spin this.

      1. i hope the idiots there all end up out of work.

      2. Well, duh- "it's greedy corporations."

      3. Welp, that's one way to get them on the government payroll. They won't be making $15 an hour there though. Of course, neither will most of the people it was supposed to help. Turns out $0 is the real minimum wage.

  6. RE: The Transparency Bullies
    Climate change skeptics have rights to free speech and privacy, too.

    Climate change skeptics do not have right to free speech or privacy.
    Comrade Bernie has said so, and he also has said he will imprison anyone who disagrees with him regarding climate change.
    This is what socialists call "toleration."
    Isn't living in a socialist slave state wonderful?

  7. I propose a compromise;

    We allow them to jail "Deniers" who question the Globullshit, if they allow us to crucify Climate Change shills who are caught lying to further their political agenda.

    Starting with Al "I've spent so much time near the Clintons I can no longer even SPELL 'ethical'" Gore.

    1. How about in exchange for jailing GMO deniers?

  8. Naked power requires resistance.

  9. There are three things that keep the world from devolving completely into a unified totalitarian state like China: (1) the internet (invented by Mr. Gore (PBUH)), (2) the US First Amendment, which ensures that all sorts of unaccepted, unacceptable, unpalatable, and disturbing things are said on the internet, and (3) the US Second Amendment, which is the reason that the US First Amendemnt and the Internet still exist.

    The countries outside the US want to control the internet more, because it offends their sense of order. The progressives in the US are trying to help them by working hard to eliminate (2) and (3), so that the world community can take over (1) and make it into something kinder and gentler and more reassuring to the people who desparately need to be controlled (by the progressives and socialists, of course). It is for their own good - just think of the children!

    1. Al Gore didn't say he invented the Internet, he said he was there when it happened. Indeed he played a central role in the policy decisions and legislation that took the private research network built on DARPAnet public as the internet we know.

      1. I didn't realize anyone actually believed this nonsense. DARPAnet was a convenient tool for visionaries like Gates and Jobs. If Al Gore had been able to predict the internet, he would have sent jackboots to arrest them, as he tried to do under Bill Clinton, lest you forget congress dragging Gates in to testify regarding the alarming nature of his business succeeding. Until Gates makes it possible for everyone to own a computer, there is no need for an internet.

      2. Technically, Al Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet." No, he did not literally say "I invented the internet", but let's get serious here: claiming that he meant anything else is pure politician-style logic-chopping. If my wife said, "You forgot to pick up the laundry", responding "I didn't say I picked up the laundry, I said I took the initiative in picking up the laundry" would not fool anybody.

  10. "Should we just go ahead and throw global warming deniers in jail?"

    Ummm, no. And that isn't happening, so stop yer whinin', Matt.

    Here in New York, the Martin Act is extremely broad and has been used since 1921 to prosecute Wall Sreet firms, banks, and others for deceitful practices. And Schneidermann believes Exxon has engaged in deceiving its investors and the public in regard to climate change. He is only doing his job.

    Libertarisns love the law when it's to their benefit. See the blind eye you all turn to the use of eminent domain to benefit private companies you like...pipelines and oil. But if anybody uses the actual law against oil, you get your feathers ruffled.

    Go check out the recent editorial from Financial Times, the long twilight of big oil. They warn oil that the world is changing and fossil fuels days are numbered. Libertarians should wise up as well.

    1. And here is your link showing how Schneidermann is just obeying New York law.

      1. Yeah, a horribly shitty unconstitutional New York law.

        Oh and also, I like your default assumption that since its a law it must be good as well.

        1. Like you do when ED suits your purposes. That law has been on the books for 100 years. And has been used. And it still hasn't been determined to be unconstitutional.

          Keep trying.

          1. God bless the oil companies. Providers of a massive amount of good paying jobs and a cornerstone of our economy.

            1. "Providers of a massive amount of good paying jobs and a cornerstone of our economy."

              Question is, do they deserve a free pass when it comes to misleading the public and their investors. Matt won't say. What say you?

              1. So, they mislead their investors eh? How, I wonder? I find it amusing that the political body that is actually responsible for the damage to their business model of providing affordable, middle class, modern life is saying that the company mislead people on how badly they were damaging the environment when so far all the studies that say they're doing damage have come to nothing. Is it your view that somehow these 'oil company' scientists are that much smarter to have not only proven the connection, but buried it?

                Ask yourself this; what abundant and easily obtained energy source is going to replace oil in the next ten years? How about fifteen? Unless you just said 'nuclear', and I'm guessing you probably just mouthed the word 'solar/wind' you're literally retarded. I will give you extra points if you said ITER, but the odd's you've ever heard about it are close to zero.

                Amusingly, the only 'danger' to the industry that has provided our entire modern way of life is the very group of people who are currently out to destroy them, who have very real profit motive in doing so. The only thing an energy company might have mislead their investors on is how much animosity the U.S. Government actually has for them, because that is literally their only current existential threat.

                1. Oh, I almost forgot, they definitely have cheated people out of their royalties. So no, they're not pure as driven snow they are also massive asshats. But attacking them for ruining the entire planet is idiocy. Hold them accountable for shit you can prove, and before you say this fishing expedition is doing that ask yourself if the government would be willing to turn over that kind of data with a FOIA request to the public.

                  Answer: They would not, because burdensome request. QED, FYTY.

                  1. "So, they mislead their investors eh? How, I wonder? "

                    By telling them something different from what they were telling themselves. That's illegal in New York apparently.

                    "Ask yourself this; what abundant and easily obtained energy source is going to replace oil in the next ten years? How about fifteen?"

                    They should have asked the judge this. Maybe they would have received the free pass you believe they deserved. Instead they settled.

    2. It isn't happening - yet. The fact that one of the great leaders of the climate change movement - a man that you voted for and was a dangling chad away from the Presidency, are calling for it is downright scary.

      It's also an admission that they have lost the climate change debate.

      1. The debate has been won. Only in libertarian small minds has it been lost. Read the link to conservative and business friendly Financial Times. See Paris.

        Keep trying. At least keep up.

        1. I can see you chanting for Galileo to be put to death. After all, he challenged the consensus.

          I can see you supporting eugenics, even to its logical conclusion. After all, it was the consensus.

          The debate had been won (by that I mean all disagreement had shouted down or criminalized).

          Yeah, it's easy to just close your mind and agree with the "experts" so you can part of the popular crowd.

          1. Yeah, you see lots of things.

            1. I see a JackAss who follows the consensus without any critical thinking. So of course you would have followed those consensuses. To do otherwise would require critical thinking, which you don't do. That's what the experts are for. Besides, to disagree would mean going against popular opinion. No fucking way would you ever do that. Then you wouldn't be able to be a smug asshole, claiming that popular opinion makes you right and anyone who disagrees with you wrong. Same debate. Same principles. Just swap out the subject matter and there you are, calling for the sterilization (or worse) of niggers and Jews. Because that's the consensus among the popular kids. That's you. Face it. Embrace it. Enjoy it. It makes you popular. It makes you cool. It makes you an idiot.

              1. Enjoy your evening!

                1. Thank you for agreeing with me. It is refreshing to see you be honest for a change.

                2. Progtards like you will eventually be swept aside. When you resist, I expect you will be put down like rabid dogs. I will work hard to ensure mercy for you soulless, unclean wretches, but there is only so much I can do for those as evil as yourself. With luck you may only be deported to Antarctica. Not the good part with the penguins though.

              2. Not only that, but I wonder if Jackand Ace even knows what the consensus was? Do you, Jack? Because I'm almost certain you don't, because the actual consensus is never actually mentioned for a reason. You're just told there is one. C'mon, Jack. Tell us. What do they all agree on, specifically?

                I can't wait to hear his reply! Mainly because as much as this is touted, not one person I've asked has answered this question correctly. Not. Even. Once. So think hard! Use Google if you must!

        2. If by a debate you mean actual facts, not cherry picked data that still can't be made to show warming? Hasn't been one.

      2. Tell you what. Let's look at a different country that relies on fossil fuels for its economy. What are officials tasked with planning for the future telling Canadians?

        "It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status."

        That is from Policy Horizons Canada. They warn that any long term investment in fossil fuels needs to be looked at with a very critical eye, because the return may not be coming. That the future is in renewables.

        And you think the argument has been lost. But hey, you're a libertarian. And when it comes to climate change, you'd head is in the sand.

        1. Link

          Note it's from Futurism. You should check it out once in a while.

          1. You do understand how vital petroleum products are to manufacturing, right? Probably not.

        2. It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status.

          The report is a joke that relies on non existent storage to make "renewable electricity" viable. You might want to start here from someone that knows what they are talking about.

        3. I would say that Canadian officials are know nothing's. Electricity is a method of power transmission, not a power source. The only "renewable" source if power that provides any sort of consistent, reliable power is hydro which is controversial for its own reasons.

        4. "It is increasingly plausible to foresee a future in which cheap renewable electricity becomes the world's primary power source and fossil fuels are relegated to a minority status."

          Where does electricity come from, dumbshit? Besides their unreliability, solar and wind are limited because of the amount of space required and the fact that wind power has already killed an estimated one million birds.

        5. So, Jack, what technology is going to replace fossil fuels in the next ten to fifteen years exactly? It must be something we've all heard of. Is it...nuclear? Maybe some kind of perpetual motion device who's only byproduct is virgins? I'd love to hear more.

          Oh're talking about Canada. It's Maple Fucking Syrup isn't it. It's always the god damn syrup. (I.E. Ethanol)

          Also, and here's something kind of ironic, since the planet is becoming warmer would that not decrease the amount of energy, and thus the need for fossil fuels, in a country like Canada? Eh?

          What most people question about the warming is the cause, rather than the happening. That's one way to tell an idiot from your average garden variety moron.

    3. It's not happening but THEY'RE ANGLING FOR IT. Thanks for being disingenuous .

      It shouldn't even be uttered in a free society.

    4. Fuck, started reading the comment before I noticed it was from Jackass. There's 5 seconds I wind get back.

      1. Gotcha!

    5. Re: Jackass Ass,

      Libertarians love the law when it's to their benefit

      You know, it would look like no one could come up with the dumbest possible truism, here you come.

      Like, who doesn't like laws that benefit them?

    6. People like you who believe it is ok to bully, harass and silence people who disagree with you scare the shit out of me.

      1. Stop crying.

      2. Not me. They just make me diligent about checking ammo caches and looking for available opportunities to chlorinate the gene pool.

    7. Good comment - constructive, instructive. Venting is so much easier.

    8. So if you believe that you can have laws against fraud then you must accept them being turned to ideological persecution?

      Schneiderman's theory is that you must treat what is still a controversial notion as fact decades ago. Sorry, the effect of this is to mandate the ideologically views if the AG.

  11. Big gummit scientists say smoking the reefer is bad.
    All those who deny reefer madness and are caught smoking the reefer get arrested and sent to the gulag.

    NIDA review summarizes research on marijuana's negative health effects

    1. Poor Obama, that stuff ruined his life!

  12. The important point here is DOUBT climate change.... you don't even need to oppose it ! Just doubt some/any of the so-called facts.

    Oppose the consensus in other words. The Portland Oregon School Board chose to ban books that doubted the consensus ( on climate change).

    1. Like many religions that wield political power, heretics are not just those that follow other religions or a satanic figure - they include any who question the established dogma.

    2. So you are saying that a science text should deny science?

      1. Can you define "science"?

        1. Define it? He fucking LOVES it, brah!!!!!11iii!!

  13. This is every leftist's wet dream. To put opposing ideas into chains, silencing them, for the collective good? This is nothing new.

    1. If endorsing climate change was good for corporations and bad for the proletariat, you can bet these same 'leaders' would be denouncing it till they were blue in the face.

      Just look at how quickly the same types fight the much-better-proven science that GMOs are safe.

  14. global warming deniers

    Can we please stop using the terminology of people who pretend that Science is a matter of popular consensus?

    The term "Deniers" specifically tries to suggest that "any debate about the reliability or utility of modern climate research" is roughly the same as "Claiming the Holocaust never happened"

    The term is offensive in both the viciousness of its smear... as well as its anti-intellectual hubris - used most often by people with little/no grasp of the actual science, but whom presume to assert that "all the facts are in and no one can dispute them".

    History is subject to interpretation but few actual dispute known facts. The climate science being debated is largely a process of model-building, which are simply competing theories about highly complex processes.

    There's nothing 'proven' which requires any 'denial'. There are just different theories about how things "might" play out. Not only does the 'denier' term paper this over, but it also conflates people who might actually *agree* with the prevailing view of AGW, but simply feel the 'catastrophic' part remains debatable.

    Using the term grants it legitimacy which it doesn't deserve.

    I know this has little to do with the thrust of Matt's piece, but its a pet-peeve when i see journos (like robby & "Rape Culture") give away the game in the process of 'challenging' critics. Don't allow them to set the terms of debate.

    1. The interesting part about 'the word denier' is religious zealots and witch hunters used it to attack and kill heretics and witches.



    2. Yup. It's supposed to put you in mind of Holocaust deniers and is quite offensive.

    3. I think Global Warming Heretics should become the popular term in the skeptic circles. It mocks the orthodoxy by pointing out how dogmatic it is, while still sounding semi-insulting enough that people who agree with the global warming alarmism might actually use it without thinking through what it says about their own position.

      1. The Prophet of Sacred Scrolls of the Inconvenient Truth instructs the Global Warming mujahidin on the treatment of the kaffir as follows: "I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. That is because they opposed Gaia and Her Messenger. And whoever opposes Gaia and Her Messenger - indeed, Gaia is severe in penalty."

    4. There are just different theories about how things "might" play out.

      AGW catastrophism does not qualify as a theory. It's a mere speculation based upon hypothesis.

      1. Correction: Unfalsifiable assertions do not qualify as hypotheses.

        1. This. So this.

    5. But, but, but Big Oil is committing a Holocaust as we speak! They're changing the climate! They're going to kill BILLIONS of people! That's not a Holocaust? It's fucking worse than the Holocaust! By several orders of magnitude! Of course it is an appropriate comparison! Hell, it doesn't go far enough!


      Just ask JackAss. He'll tell ya.

  15. they are keeping us from getting to work. They are holding us back."

    God willing.

  16. Good piece Matt.

    1. I thought we were never supposed to give praise....?

      1. pshaw. I do it all the time. *after* I get my bitch-workout.

  17. Nye, the former host of a popular PBS show in the 1990s

    That's some nice damning with faint praise.

    1. Indeed. Beakman's World was better.

  18. I don't think even God knows how much I loathe miscreants like Gore and Nye and their ilk.

  19. Gee, wonder why Trump's doing so well. Can't imagine. Looks like this thread brought them out. Someone leave out a dead rat in here?

  20. Because it is so good, here it is again.

    Credit - tarran

    I really, really hate the scions of the Rockefeller clan. I know this sounds terribly collectivist, but it's true. The reason is that every time a member of that vile misbegotten family of human vermin intrudes upon my consciousness, they are doing something vicious and despicable:

    InsideClimate: NY AG Started RICO Planning Before Any InsideClimate Stories Were Released

    As the New York Times reported in an article about Sassoon, InsideClimate is "an outgrowth of Mr. Sassoon's consulting work for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a philanthropic group that emphasizes climate policy." The Rockefeller Brothers Fund alone has strong financial ties to ICN, having given the group $800,000 in the past three years.

    But Sassoon's close relationship with the Rockefellers doesn't end there. In a set of emails that recently came to light, Sassoon wrote to folks at a PR firm called Climate Nexus ? which is a special project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and received $1.185 million from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund alone since 2012 ? with an embargoed copy of its #ExxonKnew series, which he hoped they would push out to their network of climate bloggers.
    Basically, every 'independent' party pushing for RICO investigations of "deniers" is getting money from the Rockefeller fund. Fucking savages!

    1. Oops, the link -

  21. So these folks are convinced that they can reverse the Holocene?

    ... Hobbit

  22. If the 'science' the AGW crowd crows about was worth the paper it's printed on they wouldn't be using coercion to get people to fall in line.

    1. This is important. The CAGW crowd is losing as new science questions or nullifies their claims. Skeptics are still working even though many have been fired and/or lost their funding. The truth will come out soon. Therefore, the CAGW crowd are trying to win a public opinion fight as they lose the scientific fight.

    2. The science of the AGW crowd was the same as the science of Peabody, at least internally. Publicly, Peabody misled its investors, with a whole other story. That's why they settled.

  23. "Criminalizing unpopular opinions in the name of progress is the work of dictators, not scientists."

    Awesome line! Great piece.

    1. Yeah, Matt would have you believe it's opinions that are potentially criminal. In fact, it's a company who may have deceived it's investors and the public that just might be criminal...if that is proved. And Schneidermann is investigating. As he should. Because the law says he should.

      Interesting that Matt had nothing bad to say when private emails were stolen in the hopes of silencing science. See climate gate. Maybe he would prefer that Schneidrmann just ste emails rather than follow the law.

      1. *stole

      2. When Obama said "If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it" when trying to get people on board for Obamacare, would you say he deceived the American people? Was that fraud? Should he be investigated and punished?

      3. The "investigation" is being done entirely in bad faith - much like how you argue.

  24. I like how the climate derpers follow around the host of a 1990's PBS kiddy show as their Great and Infallible Leader. Think about it. Amazing. #PartyOfScience

  25. Freedom of speech to promote ideas is one thing. Knowingly lying to the public over matters that endanger livelihoods, health, and security is another. Under some circumstances it is fraud and a crime.

    If we are to have "takings" law protecting investors from the economic damages of new measures to protect the public interest, isn't it mere symmetry to have laws to indemnify the public against losses caused by irresponsible corporate action?

    And that 99.8% decline in Peabody stock? The legal case did very little of the damage. Buggy whip manufacturers lost their shirts, too, if they hung on to the old model too long.

    1. Coal is still a very viable energy source. China is starting up an average of two coal-fired power plants per day.

      Your comparison of coal to buggy whips is just plain stupid.

      1. "China is starting up an average of two coal-fired power plants per day."

        Absolute nonsense. Good lord, the rubbish folks here swallow without the slightest hint of questioning.

          1. "That's still a lot of power and a lot of coal."

            Rather, that's a lot of approval.

    2. Well, "Knowingly lying to the public over matters that endanger livelihoods, health, and security is another. Under some circumstances it is fraud and a crime." applies to the other side too (symmetry).

      That is to say, if it is legal to throw "climate change deniers" in jail for fraud, it is also legal to throw "anthropogenic global warming alarmists" in jail for fraud too.

      I would totally support jailing either side if we set aside a particular date far in the future, say 20 years from now, upon which we will look back and see which prediction was right: was there AGW or not? If it turns out there was AGW, then the climate change deniers get thrown in jail. If it turns out there was not, the AGW alarmists must return public funds taken and given to green/clean energy cronies AND must go to jail.

      Why the asymmetry there? Climate change deniers aren't special getting taxpayer funds--they are mostly private enterprises selling privately-made products and services to the public, who willingly purchases them. On the other hand, the AGW alarmists are very much funneling taxpayer funds into their preferred green/clean energy enterprises.

  26. Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

  27. the former vice president insisted that "we cannot continue to allow" the fossil fuel industry to pursue its current pastime of "mislead[ing] the public about the impact they have on the health of our people and the health of our planet"

    I contend that we cannot allow a crony blowhard like Al recount-until-I-win Gore continue to misinform and frighten the public about a planetary system of which humans have only scratched the surface of understanding.

    1. "we cannot allow a crony blowhard like Al"

      Hope you're not relying on outfits like Peabody to lead the fight. They settled.

      1. You stupid ignoramus! They put Peabody out of business because they don't like coal. This is government malfeasance writ large.

        1. They didn't put Peabody out of business. Not even Matt is saying that. They misled their investors and then settled. You want someone to lead the fight against the Al Gores of the world? You need someone made of sterner stuff than your current breed of spineless heroes.

  28. why is this still a news-the believers just had a big conference in france and made their plan. done deal.
    they are so serious about warming that they all flew in on privite jets,1000 or more i have read

  29. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly... By completing freelance jobs you get online... I do this three hours every day, for five da?ys weekly and I earn in this way an extra 12000 bucks each week...

    i work through this Website.. Go Here.._____________

  30. I loathe Bill Nye and what he says. Maybe we can gather enough support to throw him in jail? And who knows, he might even enjoy it.

  31. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here ...

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

  32. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser?


  33. What is it about progressives and raised fingers?

  34. Here's a better idea: anyone who talks of jailing "deniers" is shot.

  35. 2"My friend just told me about this easiest method of freelancing. I've just tried it and now II am getting paid 15000usd monthly without spending too much time.You can also do this.


  36. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.


  37. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.


  38. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.


  39. 4"I quit my 9 to 5 job and now I am getting paid 100usd hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try-something NEW. After two years, I can say my life is changed-completely for the better!Learn More From This Site...


  40. I've made $76,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student.I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money.It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  41. Gore, Kennedy and Nye. Climate fascists. They brook no dissent. No discussion.
    Yet, each most likely arrived to the conclave in a private jet.

  42. Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here..

    Copy This Link...


  43. my friend's mom makes $73 hourly on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her pay was $18731 just working on the laptop for a few hours.....

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  44. my roomate's step-mother makes 60 each hour on the internet and she has been out of work for seven months but last month her check was 14489 just working on the internet for 5 hours a day, look at ..
    Read more on this web site..


  45. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??.


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.