Comments on: Climate Alarmists and Individual Rights

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:23:56 +0000

Long time reader and fan of your blog. Just wanted to say thanks for all you do.

By: Przemysław Pawełczyk

Przemysław Pawełczyk — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:14:58 +0000

A quote - "Call it regulation, law, or influence. Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms. In the same way that to enjoy the freedom of a car you need insurance to protect the freedom of other drivers and pedestrians; in the same way that you enjoy the freedom to publish your views, you need a regulatory code to ensure the freedoms of those who can either disagree with or disprove your views. Either way. While I dislike Brendan O’Neill and know he’s wrong, I can’t stop him. But we need a body with teeth to be able to say, “actually Brendan, you can’t publish that unless you can prove it.”"

I can't understand how much your American minds are screwed up by the state propaganda. And your faith in regulations, state regulations. Where is the American spirit of XIX century?

1) Your insurance is ONLY A WAY to insurance YOURSELF if something went wrong and you made harm to somebody. It should be voluntary and only in order not to go bancrupt if someone sued you for the demages. How on earth you could say that your compulsory (highly unAmerican and anti-freedom!) insurance is for freedom of others! Going the path of your thought you have gotten freedom to kill them! You are insured anyway, aren't you?

2) Why do you need regulatory code for freedom of expression? You got courts for those kind of offenses (slanders). Why do you need STATE to regulate your freedoms? Are you mad? What or who will be regulating the regulators? STATE again?

This time is the last one I read anything you wrote on this blog. Never ever I read on American website such Anti-American bullshit. You are either red (a commy) or insane. Tertium non datur.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 08:55:43 +0000

There is the flipside.

What penalties do the alarmist have to pay when the temperatures don't rise?

Clearly there is financial damage being done. They are quite open about it. If you damage people fiancially, without merit, then restitution should take place.

Will they pay out for the trillions in costs they have imposed?

What about for the deaths they have caused by diverting money to useless projects?

...

By: Klockarman

Klockarman — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:50:09 +0000

If or when President Obama assumes office, and Congress has a larger Democratic majority, I fully expect that the Dems will spend a significant chunk of their so-called “political capital” on implementing the Fairness Doctrine (“The Fairness Doctrine”. Wow. The fascist overtones to that phrase are truly breathtaking.) Anyway, it’s been dicussed that the Fairness Doctrine is aimed at talk radio, i.e. El Rushbo, but why would they stop there? If it’s good for talk radio, it’s surely good for bloggers too is what they will say. These are Progressivs we are talking about – and they must you know…progress.

By: Sameer Parekh

Sameer Parekh — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:56:33 +0000

This is the comment I left: "My god you are such an idiot. Have you even stopped to think that someday things might be different and that the "consensus" is that there is no climate change? Then when you start talking about climate change they will say you're the one committing a crime against humanity. You are such an idiot."

Yeah I know I probably should have been civil. Sorry.

By: Mesa Econoguy

Mesa Econoguy — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:19:04 +0000

I’m an advocate for something stronger. Call it regulation, law, or influence. Whatever name we give it, it should not be seen as regulation vs. freedom, but as a balancing of different freedoms.

By all means, let’s enact regulations, as these global warming socialists seem to be so enthusiastic about, and let’s have uniformity of reporting and performance monitoring.

Say, something like this which applies to the financial industry, one of (the?) most heavily regulated industries in the world. It should work just fine for the global warming industry. And the consequences should be just as severe.

And then let's watch the parade of subpoenas of these "scientists." A few perp walks in handcuffs and jumpsuits for some of these frauds sure would be amusing...

By: KJ

KJ — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:04:33 +0000

I can't find any comments at Lockwood's post.
When I go there, I get only his post, but no comments.
When I go to his home page, and scroll down to that particular post, and click on "Comments", all it does it take me to the same page, but still with no comments.

Am I doing something wrong?

By: ken nielsen

ken nielsen — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:43:42 +0000

Yes, I think he has recanted almost completely.
The scary thing is that a teacher of journalism would have had such an idea in the first place.
One other thought: I doubt that the energy companies are spending much thse days on refuting AGW.
For a scientist, there are far greater career opportunities - money, appointment, promotions - in supporting the AGW "industry" than in opposing or questioning it. That, on its own, is a worrying thing for those of us who hope that eventually science will produce the right answers. There are in fact too few sceptics.

By: Iblis

Iblis — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:31:43 +0000

Thought crime, double plus ungood, and subject to correction by the Ministry of Love.

By: mjh

mjh — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:18:17 +0000

Dirty Dingus: Let’s be civil. The guy made a mistake and he’s backing away from it. That’s the kind of behavior that is beneficial in debate. Try not to punish it by piling on. Or maybe next time, he’ll be more steadfast in defending that mistake – a pattern of behavior that seems rampant in the catastrophic AGW crowd.