Emerging battle-bruised from the disaster zone of Copenhagen, but ever-hopeful, a rider on horseback brought news of darkness and light: “The politicians have failed. Now it’s up to us. We must break the law to make the laws we need: laws that are supposed to protect society, and protect our future. Until our laws do that, screw being climate lobbyists. Screw being climate activists. It’s not working. We need an army of climate outlaws.”
The proper channels have failed. It’s time for mass civil disobedience to cut off the financial oxygen from denial and skepticism.
If you’re one of those who believe that this is not just necessary but also possible, speak to us. Let’s talk about what that mass civil disobedience is going to look like.
If you’re one of those who have spent their lives undermining progressive climate legislation, bankrolling junk science, fueling spurious debates around false solutions, and cattle-prodding democratically-elected governments into submission, then hear this:
We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.
And we be many, but you be few.
So one side of the climate catastrophism argument abhors open debate, refuses to allow scientific work to be shared or replicated, and openly threatens violence, and it is those of us on the other side who are anti-science?
Update: In an interesting use of words, Greenpeace has removed and hidden the original post “in the interest of transparancey” and replaced it with a fairly lame message that says that obviously I and other misunderstood words like “army,” “break the law,” and “We know where you live” as threatening. Um, OK. Any, Anthony was links to the original archived here.
Update #2: This is pretty good overheated stuff, along roughly the same lines. Because there is no better way to promote open scientific debate than threatening to jail one side:
The criteria was “The scientific and medical community’s knowledge of the relationship of smoking and disease evolved through the 1950s and achieved consensus in 1964. However, even after 1964, Defendants continued to deny both the existence of such consensus and the overwhelming evidence on which it was based.”
So they ARE criminally liable if they continue to knowingly spread misinformation after the scientific community has achieved consensus. There is scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and there has been for 15 to 20 years.
Insomuch as the corporate Deniers claim that they have investigated the climate science thoroughly and that there is no significant evidence it seems to me they have lied themselves into a corner. Either they are lying about having examined the science or they are lying about what the science says, but either way they are lying. This makes them liable to legal action.
We don’t have half a century to waste tolerating these disinformation campaigns. This is not a question of upholding freedom of speech, it is a matter of corporate and individual criminality. The value of these reports is not in casting doubt on the Denier arguments; those have been known all along to be nonsense. The value is that the reports present an opportunity to hold the guilty parties responsible for their crimes, and to end the disinformation campaigns with legal penalties appropriate to the magnitude of those crimes.
Next up, Fremch 19th century chemists are retroactively sued for challenging the nearly century-old consensus on the phlogistan theory of combustion.