Legal consequences for denying climate-change consensus?

The idea does seem to be in the air (Coyote, Aug. 5; Alex Lockwood, Jul. 31 but note Aug. 4 post backtracking somewhat). Lockwood writes from the U.K., which of course lacks our First Amendment. On the idea of staging show trials of energy executives for propagating incorrect opinion, see Point of Law, Jun. 23, as well as Kivalina suit coverage.


  • Galileo will be rolling over in his grave.

    Even the Catholic Church finally saw the error of its ways (albeit almost 400 years late) and apologized for its actions. How long will we have to wait for the Church of Gaia to stop accusing scientists of heresy because they don’t believe in Global Warming? When they have to resort to calling critics deniers and demanding that show trials be held to silence any opposition to their beliefs then you know that we are no longer dealing with a scientific controversy but rather with religious fanatics. Global Warming is our new religion. Earth in the Balance is our bible and Al Gore is our Pope. If we don’t repent our wasteful ways we will be doomed and the earth will be flooded.

  • I can’t believe that this was brought up again, a crime against the consensus, good lord, what happened to our world?