US and State Attorney Generals may prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

[Dashinka 25,881]

So what happened to the First Ammendment?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/30/state-attorneys-general-to-target-global-warming-deniers/

[ready4ONE 5,400]

So what happened to the First Ammendment?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/30/state-attorneys-general-to-target-global-warming-deniers/

You mean the ability to make knowingly false claims? Pretty sure con-artists have faced legal action before, and after the formation of this great Nation and the writing of the First Amendment. Especially when such claims lead to damages both physical and monitary for victims of said false claims.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

You have the right of first amendment but the question is, do you have the right to spread non-factual information? That is of course, if it's a proven fact global warming is happening.

[Dashinka 25,881]

You have the right of first amendment but the question is, do you have the right to spread non-factual information? That is of course, if it's a proven fact global warming is happening.

That's really the point now isn't it. How do they prove global warming is real?

[Janelle2002 3,865]

That's really the point now isn't it. How do they prove global warming is real?

Analyze evidence. When you have countries like Maldives disappearing underwater you have to ask, how much denial can possibly be done?

[OriZ 3,165]

You have the right of first amendment but the question is, do you have the right to spread non-factual information? That is of course, if it's a proven fact global warming is happening.

Yes.

And no.

You mean the ability to make knowingly false claims? Pretty sure con-artists have faced legal action before, and after the formation of this great Nation and the writing of the First Amendment. Especially when such claims lead to damages both physical and monitary for victims of said false claims.

Quite ridiculous when the government itself makes false claims all the time. False claims do fall under the category of free speech. As long as it's not inflammatory and/or inciting.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

When you pay for false information and then point to it and call it 'science' for fun and profit you are crossing the freedom of speech line.

[OriZ 3,165]

When you pay for false information and then point to it and call it 'science' for fun and profit you are crossing the freedom of speech line.

Nope, you're not. Not legally.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

So what happened to the First Ammendment?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/10/us-attorney-general-we-may-prosecute-climate-change-deniers/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/03/30/state-attorneys-general-to-target-global-warming-deniers/

It would only target large companies that ran their own studies that concluded it was happening and then buried those studies and worked to discredit others work. Nothing from the 1980's that environmentalists are complaining about would come close to qualifying..

But if they did set that type of precedent - wow we could go fill Jihad on anit-vaxers, homeopathy, all the major religions.. Chaos heaven for years!

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

That's really the point now isn't it. How do they prove global warming is real?

They can prove that the atmosphere is gaining CO2 at almost exactly the rate that humans are dumping it into the atmosphere. They can prove that CO2 blocks sunlight and adds that energy to the earth "system" instead of releasing it to space. What they can't know is exactly is what happens and at what pace with the excess stored energy - though its almost surely destructive. In 100 years we'll know *exactly* by using really accurate charts of the previous 100 years and video of before and after shots. Hopefully that will come in handy for future generations.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Nope, you're not. Not legally.

The word fraudulent isn't in the massive database of your brain?

[OriZ 3,165]

The word fraudulent isn't in the massive database of your brain?

Takes more than that to be considered fraudulent.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Takes more than that to be considered fraudulent.

The climate change denial industry has done more than that.

[Boiler 47,491]

So would it also apply to the Islam denialist?

[Rob L 3,811]

Yes.

And no.

And No what?

Nope, you're not. Not legally.

That's really the point now isn't it. How do they prove global warming is real?

Is this really your first visit to CEHEST?