Freedom of speech? Global Warming deniers and Anti-Vac Fearmongery.

I'm pissed. If freedom of speech is to mean anything at all, it must account for the right to protect one's life, whenever it manifests as an obvious weapon of assault on the lifes of others.

The big swindle movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk

ABC DEBATE ABOUT THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE SWINDLE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ

PLEASE SHARE THOSE VIDEOS SO THAT PEOPLE MAY BE ENLIGHTENED AND NOT REMAIN LIVING IN LA LA LAND!

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• free
• speech
• libertarianism
• climate
• change
• global
• warming
• deniers
• al
• gore
• obama
• anarchism
• atheism

[misterkel10]

I've recently changed my position and no longer believe in catastrophic AGW. I think the IPCC is wrong and dangerous. You are not aware of the facts - do you understand that CO2 warming is asymptotic? Do you know what that means? Do you know that CO2 is 20 less potent of a greenhouse gas than WATER? Do you realize that CO2 in the Cambrian was 20 times higher than currently and yet it did not spin out of control? Study more, then advocate censorship. watch Catastrophe Denied on youtube.

[dakshinamurti]

@misterkel10 Misterkel... dont assume I haven't studied this before making the video. Your points are totally irrelevant. Hey, if you wanna try living in the Cambrian be my guest lol :) It is you who needs to go check on the answers to your own objections, in places like... greenman3610 channel potholer54 channel and the site skepticalscience thank you.

[acmarkz]

What do you believe should be the punishment for those who disagree with proposed climate legislation?

[dakshinamurti]

none. I don't support climate legislation If we're talking about habitual use of the term legislation, as in the context of state legislation). I do believe negatives externalities give just cause for any citizen or group of citizens to demand compensation (one -off or rent), but that really depends on the externality in question, for there are those which are simply unacceptable (those one-off actions that are incompatible with human life for example). very difficult subject.

[mecobeach]

freespeech is not about telling lies to a person like you made an example for in your video, free speech is when you can do an output from whatever goes into your mind to your surrounding without fear, without someone or some organization tell you to not do it.

Even if denying that climate is changing is a lie, it is minor compared to all the ages of domination a killing sprees that government take on people from the roman empire to our days.

[dakshinamurti]

are you saying that because there's a bigger crime, lesser crimes are of no concern?

[MrPincoNico]

(From below) The cost for them and their society will be so bad governments may not have the capital required. Where it can be proved that individuals and companies deliberately sowed lies to prevent anything being done in time. Individuals, companies and governments can set out to sue the crap out of these people.

[MrPincoNico]

Unfortunately, even though I agree with your position on man made climate change and that a lot of denialers are saber charging humanities desire to do what it can to stop climate change. I believe for the sack of freedom we need to put up with it. Yet there is nothing wrong with compiling a list of these people and what they said and did. At some point the reality of climate change will be undeniable. The destruction so bad and wide. That a lot of ignoramuses will wake up. (will continue)

[Anteater22]

It's a good point, but I can understand why it wouldn't be popular. No one wants to be in favour of censorship. No one wants to be the one burning the books. But free speech is a dangerous thing. A lie can lead to the death of millions. I think the reality is that censorship is increasingly unworkable. It's like wack-a-mole. However, there may yet come a day when all the liars and truth-deniers are held to account.

[mphello]

@mphello That said, private entities should be allowed to censor and also say whatever they want in their private sphere (those with no property MUST be allowed that region on earth where anyone can hear their ideas). That implies peer-reviewed journals do not have to allow bullshit climate-change-denying pseudoscience in their journals.

And, finally, THAT said: MANDMADE CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT FREE SPEECH! It is a REAL PHYSICAL PROVABLE THING! SAME WITH EATING MEAT (TORTURING ANIMALS).

[mphello]

@mphello .. the throats of the world, through their criminal tyrannical fascist laws, for far too long.

There absolutely HAS to be a region on earth - both physical and conceptual - where ALL these ideas may be traded. When any private entity - religion or corporation - become too big that they squeeze out those ideas, no matter how wrong or violent those ideas are (just because that's YOUR criterion for censoring doesn't make it MINE)..

then those private entities must be forced back.

[mphello]

All speech is "free" speech. It doesn't change the fact that it is still speech, no matter what the content.  The ONLY time speech should be outlawed - and I don't care if the speech is false or violent or death threats or pornographic or obscene or any of those trivial things only politically correct lunatics worry about - is due to QUANTITY - how often it is shoved down our throats.

The anti-environmentalists and anti-semites and conservaturds have shoved THEIR speech down ..

[misterkel10]

cont- You only want to censor scientific debate, it seems. And yes, I've studied both sides - I use to be an AGW cultist, but then I studied the counter-science and the extreme case didn't make sense. Yes, there is about a degree or so of warming potential from CO2, then that curves off and hits a natural limit, as in a negative feedback system. The global warming assumptions are not in line with evidence. All evidence is forced to fit the model - it's just bad science, imo.

[misterkel10]

@dakshinamurti 'if if want to live in the Cambrian' - lol. If you want to live in an imaginary future made by computer models based on disaster as a presumption, be my guest. None of the AGW predictions are panning out. My point is the models presume a positive feedback, out of control climate response to CO2, but the opposite has been proved in the past - again and again, CO2 is reabsorbed into the oceans. I assume you haven't studied because you don't address it in your video.

[misterkel10]

You talk too much to make your point, btw.